NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL · B.B.A., Mercer University, 2000 B.A, Mercer University, 2000 Submitted...

NAVAL

POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

THESIS

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

STILL A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP? THE SIGNIFICANCE OF UNITED STATES-UNITED KINGDOM RELATIONS

IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

by

Marlene Z. Silva

December 2011

Thesis Advisor: Donald Abenheim Second Reader: Dirk Rogalski

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704–0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202–4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704–0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

2. REPORT DATE December 2011

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Master’s Thesis

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Still a Special Relationship? The Significance of United States-United Kingdom Relations in the Twenty-First Century

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S) Marlene Z. Silva 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943–5000

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) N/A

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. IRB Protocol number ______N/A______.

12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE A

13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) The so-called Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom has been a signal feature of the foreign relations of the United States and the United Kingdom, especially in the past ten years of the war against terror. As such, the topic represents an important theme of policy for U.S. officers who serve in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The present thesis seeks to understand how leading institutions and responsible figures in Britain view the Special Relationship within the contemporary strategic and political context. Furthermore, the thesis analyzes the nature, character, and durability of this strategic idea in UK statecraft from a British perspective in three case studies: a) the Iraqi campaign of 2001–2010; b) the Afghan campaign, 2001–present, and c) the most recent Libyan episode of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) operations in 2011. In particular, this inquiry comprehends the Special Relationship as a feature of British diplomatic and strategic culture, and as an expression of shared values and institutions the character of which is vital for those charged with service in an Anglo-American context as well as NATO.

14. SUBJECT TERMS United Kingdom, United States, Special Relationship, Anglo-American Relations, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, United States–United Kingdom Relations, Alliance

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

89 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

UU NSN 7540–01–280–5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2–89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239–18

ii


iii

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

STILL A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP? THE SIGNIFICANCE OF UNITED STATES-UNITED KINGDOM RELATIONS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST

CENTURY

Marlene Z. Silva Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy

B.B.A., Mercer University, 2000 B.A, Mercer University, 2000

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN SECURITY STUDIES (EUROPE AND EURASIA)

from the

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 2011

Author: Marlene Z. Silva

Approved by: Donald Abenheim Thesis Advisor

Dirk Rogalski Second Reader

Daniel J. Moran Chair, Department of National Security Affairs

iv


v

ABSTRACT

The so-called Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom

has been a signal feature of the foreign relations of the United States and the United

Kingdom, especially in the past ten years of the war against terror. As such, the topic

represents an important theme of policy for U.S. officers who serve in the United

Kingdom or elsewhere. The present thesis seeks to understand how leading institutions

and responsible figures in Britain view the Special Relationship within the contemporary

strategic and political context. Furthermore, the thesis analyzes the nature, character, and

durability of this strategic idea in UK statecraft from a British perspective in three case

studies: a) the Iraqi campaign of 2001–2010; b) the Afghan campaign, 2001–present, and

c) the most recent Libyan episode of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO)

operations in 2011. In particular, this inquiry comprehends the Special Relationship as a

feature of British diplomatic and strategic culture, and as an expression of shared values

and institutions the character of which is vital for those charged with service in an Anglo-

American context as well as NATO.

vi


vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 A. MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTION ...............................................................1 B. IMPORTANCE ................................................................................................2 C. PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES ...............................................................3 D. LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................5 E. METHODS AND SOURCES .........................................................................7 F. THESIS OVERVIEW .....................................................................................8

II. HISTORY OF THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP .................................................11 A. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................11 B. BACKGROUND ON THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP:

TRADITIONS, VALUES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PERSONALITIES ...12 III. POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM .......................................19

A. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................19 B. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY .................................................................20 C. THE LABOUR PARTY ................................................................................21 D. THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY ......................................................23 E. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................24

IV. IRAQ ...........................................................................................................................27 A. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................27 B. THE BLAIR–BUSH RELATIONSHIP .......................................................27

1. The “Inevitable” United Kingdom Support for War .....................28 2. Blair’s Mission, Priorities, and Perceptions ....................................30 3. Perceptions of the Bush Administration ..........................................33

C. THE BROWN-BUSH RELATIONSHIP .....................................................34 D. THE ROLE OF THE INQUIRY: THE IRAQ INQUIRY AND THE

HOUSE OF COMMONS UK-U.S. RELATIONS INQUIRY ...................37 1. The Role of the Junior Partner .........................................................40

E. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................41

V. AFGHANISTAN ........................................................................................................43 A. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................43 B. THE BLAIR-BUSH RELATIONSHIP .......................................................44 C. THE BROWN PREMIERSHIP: THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP

WITH BUSH AND OBAMA ........................................................................46 D. THE CAMERON-OBAMA RELATIONSHIP ...........................................47 E. THE ROLE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY: THE HOUSE

OF COMMONS UK-U.S. RELATIONS INQUIRY ..................................49 F. THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS .................................................51 G. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................52

VI. LIBYA .........................................................................................................................55 A. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................55

viii

B. THE CAMERON-OBAMA RELATIONSHIP ...........................................56 C. THE ROLE OF NATO ..................................................................................61 D. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................62

VII. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................65 A. HISTORY OF SHARED INTERESTS, COOPERATION, AND

UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................................65 B. THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP IN 2011: THE WAY AHEAD? ..........66 C. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................68

LIST OF REFERENCES ......................................................................................................71 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST .........................................................................................77

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I would like to thank Professor Donald Abenheim for his professional

expertise, patience, guidance, support, and encouragement throughout the thesis process.

Professor Abenheim’s attention to detail and appreciation for the written word assisted

me tremendously in putting together this project. I can honestly say this thesis would

have never been written had it not been for Professor Abenheim.

Secondly, I would like to thank Colonel Dirk Rogalski for his continuous support

throughout the evolution of this project as well as Professor Carolyn Halladay, whose

encouragement and editing skills were invaluable to my thesis writing.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my parents, Ada and Amaro, who

have always supported me throughout all my endeavors and whose positive influence in

my life has been the source of my success.

x


1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTION

The so called Special Relationship between the United States and the United

Kingdom has been a signal feature of the foreign relations of the United States, especially

in the past ten years of the war against terror, to say nothing of the world wars in the

twentieth century at which time the rivalry between the two nations was replaced by

alliance. In mid-2011, President Barack Obama, on a state visit to the United Kingdom,

described this connection as the “essential relationship,” a cornerstone of security and

peace in the world for decades. Queen Elizabeth II responded with her own toast to the

“tried, tested, and—yes—Special Relationship” between the two countries, laying

particular emphasis on the U.S.-British alliance of the era of the world wars as well as the

Cold war.

How do leading institutions and responsible figures in Britain view the Special

Relationship within the contemporary strategic and political context in which war

weariness and new challenges after a decade of conflict have made themselves felt amid

the world economic crisis? The present thesis seeks to understand the nature, character,

and durability of this strategic idea in UK statecraft from a British perspective in three

case studies: a.) the Iraqi campaign of 2001–2010; b.) the Afghan campaign, 2001–

present, and c.) the most recent Libyan episode of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization’s (NATO) operations in 2011. In particular, this inquiry seeks to understand

the Special Relationship as a feature of British diplomatic and strategic culture, and as an

expression of shared values and institutions the character of which is vital for those

charged with service in an Anglo-American context as well as NATO. This work also

examines the critics and opponents of the Special Relationship in British politics amid the

particular strains that have manifested themselves in the past decade and more of conflict

on various fronts. The center of gravity of the work at hand will be on

2

an historical analysis of political and strategic culture through values, institutions, and

personalities and a contemporary-history perspective on events of yesterday and today in

trans-Atlantic relations of the English speaking peoples.

B. IMPORTANCE

On 5 March 1946, Winston Churchill made his Sinews of Peace address at

Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, more or less unveiling the Atlantic response to

what presently became the Cold War and the evolution of U.S.-UK relations in the

second half of the twentieth century. In his speech, Churchill made the first references to

the Special Relationship. He said: “Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous

rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal

association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between

the British Commonwealth and Empire and the U.S.”1 Since the Second World War,

relations between the United States and the United Kingdom have set the example for

bilateral cooperation and collaboration in the international system of states based on

shared values, interests, the need to organize the European system of states and, more

recently in face of conflict beyond Europe and North America, in the former British

Empire in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in Libya, itself a scene of

British martial glory in World War II.

The Special Relationship is founded on the cultural and historical connections

between the two countries, as Churchill alluded, but also the shared traditions, values,

interests, and institutions of a domestic and international nature. The traditions of liberal

democracy, rule of law, and common history, alongside the continued cooperation since

at least 1941 in defense, security, military, intelligence, and nuclear issues, stand at the

very center of what makes this relationship unlike that of such U.S. allies as France,

Germany, Japan or Iraq or others. In no small part, the Special Relationship derives from

a deliberate British decision more or less since 1941 that deviates from the course of the

French and the Germans in the geostrategic system as expressed in their respective

1 Winston S. Churchill, “The Sinews of Peace Address,” NATO, 5 March 1946, accessed 17

September 2011, http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1946/s460305a_e.htm.

3

multilateral relations with the United States and the wider world. In this regard, the

Special Relationship is, indeed, special, in the sense of being unique as well as uniquely

enduring despite differences of policy and the wear and tear worked by the passage of

decades in which other bilateral relationships have frayed and broken.

The ability of this relationship to endure through times of war, peace, and change

requires analysis, granted the stresses and strains that have also undermined this

relationship not only in the distant past, but the immediate past and present. Additionally,

the role of the relationship within such multilateral organizations as the United Nations

(UN) and specifically the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is both positive

and meaningful to understand the link between domestic politics, values, and

international institutions in collective security and collective defense in perpetual crisis.

Therefore, the details of how and why the Special Relationship has evolved in the

period 2001–2012—on the basis of the longer relationship—through the wars of Iraq and

Afghanistan and the NATO operations in Libya merit attention. Especially the roles of

such categories as the political and strategic culture in the Special Relationship and the

effects of shared values and interests are most important from a policy perspective for the

United States, which, as President Obama’s words suggest, has come to rely on the

persistence of this Special Relationship as the crisis-driven twenty-first century

continues.

C. PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES

The leading basic questions that this research will explore include the following:

• Is the Special Relationship fact or fiction, romanticism or strategy, myth or reality in the twenty-first century, and if it is a myth, who, how and why has it been created and to what ends?

• What is the role of this relationship in U.S.-UK relations in security and defense and how does it reveal itself in the twenty-first century?

• What are the personalities, forces, traditions, interests, and institutions at the heart of the Special Relationship?

4

• How do critics of Anglo-American relations in the United Kingdom view the Special Relationship, and what of these dissenting views should be of note to makers of U.S. policy?

The Special Relationship is and will continue to be of utmost significance to

NATO and to the two partners, as was most powerfully evident in the first half of 2011

with the Libyan campaign, as well as in the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns considered

herein. The common values, interests, and institutions shared by the United States and the

United Kingdom will be the basis by which the relationship remains close and

cooperative. There is no doubt that each of the three case studies detailed in this thesis

will reveal certain aspects of the relationship that are negative, as is the nature of any

bilateral relationship in the international system where interests diverge apart from

rhetoric and tradition. However, this thesis will argue, the staying power of the

relationship will remain intact, due to the shared attitudes and interests of the two

countries amid a more hostile world in which the power of the West is contested from old

and new challenges and threats.

The case studies of Iraq and Afghanistan in the past ten years seek to define the

character of the Special Relationship and its role in times of war from a distinctly British

perspective. The evolution of British policy and strategy during these two wars and how

policy and strategy has changed or has stayed the same in the wake of different

personalities and circumstances is of primary importance.

The case study of Libya in 2011 seeks to explore whether the challenge the

Western intervention there presents and redefines aspects of the Special Relationship and

other NATO partners, i.e. France and Germany? Are there going to be any changes or

refinements to the making of strategy, as well as such subordinate themes of alliance

cohesion as information sharing, and other operational approaches are taken in the future,

especially in light of the U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates having predicted at the

start of the Libyan campaign that NATO was on its death bed?

This study will consider, in addition to official policy statement and strategic

decisions, the role of personality and collective personalities within the statecraft and

policy of the Special Relationship. Just how fraternal is Churchill’s association of

5

English-speaking peoples (whose differences had also inspired some famous quotes

attributed to Sir Winston)? And to what extent does it depend on the personal attention

of politicians on both sides of “the pond”? Thus, the research will explore leading

personalities at the macro-level, for example President George W. Bush and Prime

Minister Tony Blair, as a way of analyzing policy and strategy during the wars in Iraq

and Afghanistan and the Libyan operation.

D. LITERATURE REVIEW

The nature and character of the Special Relationship is analyzed here chiefly in an

historical treatment from the works of the most important authors in the area of Anglo-

American relations. The main authors include John Baylis, D. Cameron Watt, Alan P.

Dobson, John Dumbrell, William Roger Louis and Hedley Bull. The main works in the

field are: Anglo-American Defense Relations, 1939–1984: The Special Relationship by

John Baylis; Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century: of Friendship, Conflict

and the Rise and Decline of Superpowers by Alan P. Dobson; A Special Relationship:

Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq by John Dumbrell; Succeeding

John Bull: America in Britain’s Place, 1900–1975: a Study of the Anglo-American

Relationship and World Politics in the Context of British and American Foreign-Policy-

Making in the Twentieth Century by Donald Cameron Watt; and The “Special

Relationship”: Anglo-American Relations Since 1945 by William Roger Louis and

Hedley Bull—among a wide literature that is enumerated in detail below.2

Watt’s book, which covers Anglo-American relations from 1900 until 1975,

explores the foreign-policy–making groups on each side of the Atlantic, paying particular

attention to the “foreign-policy–making elites” (which he studies as an historian and not a

2 John Baylis, Anglo-American Defense Relations 1939–1984, (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1984);

Alan P. Dobson, Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century: of Friendship, Conflict and the Rise and Decline of Superpowers, (Oxon: Routledge,1995); John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); D. Cameron Watt, Succeeding John Bull: America in Britain's Place, 1900–1975: a Study of the Anglo-American Relationship and World Politics in the Context of British and American Foreign-Policy-Making in the Twentieth Century, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); and William Roger Louis and Hedley Bull, ed., The “Special Relationship”: Anglo-American Relations Since 1945, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).

6

political scientist) and their attitudes and perceptions in policy-making.3 Dumbrell’s

book speaks to the Special Relationship as a matter of shared culture and addresses “the

resilience of the closeness, not its demise” in the early twenty-first century.4 Such a

generalization speaks to the role of values in the making of foreign policy, a theme that is

central to the study at hand and which represents a signal aspect of democracy and

security in the past and present as well as a source of contention among critics of such

statecraft in their number. The book is significant, as well, because it characterizes the

early phase of the Iraq Campaign in 2002–2004 and the personalities involved in both the

United States and the United Kingdom in the decision to go to war in 2003.5 The

discussion of shared values and culture described in the book from an analytical center of

gravity in the present study as well as an important area for reflection and analysis among

those actively involved in the strategic affairs and operational details of the Special

Relationship in the here and now.

Baylis’s book provides a part of the necessary background for the thesis by

discussing the Special Relationship since the beginning of the Second World War in

terms of defense cooperation, which Baylis argues is only one dimension of the

relationship—but is one of the shared interests at the very core of the special relationship.

Of the four main areas of defense relations, which include (a) The Strategic Relationship,

(b) The Technical Relationship, (c) The Operational Relationship, and (d) The

Economic/Commercial Relationship, discussed in the book, the focus for this thesis will

be on the Political/Strategic Relationship, which includes both the bilateral relations of

the U.S.-UK and their relations within the multilateral context, i.e., NATO.6

Dobson’s book will assist in constructing the basic foundation of the elements of

the Special Relationship. Dobson, a senior lecturer at University College Swansea,

explores the defense, economic, and foreign policies of the United States and the United

Kingdom from around 1900 until 1995 assessing the value and longevity of the

3 Watt, Succeeding John Bull, 2–20. 4 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 6. 5 Ibid., 154–159, 210–215. 6 Baylis, Anglo-American Defense Relations, xviii–xix.

7

relationship to be based on shared beliefs and values.7. Along with these other studies,

Louis and Bull’s book is a necessary volume in the history of U.S.-UK relations. The

book includes the historical, economic, and defense aspects of the relationship, with each

chapter written by scholars in the field of Anglo-American relations.8

The chapter of this thesis that focuses on British politics will be derived from

several sources of key import to this chapter will be the 2009–2010 British Parliament’s

House of Commons report on U.S.-UK relations, which covers the key areas of

cooperation within the relationship, the British political approach to UK-U.S. relations,

and the future of the relationship. It concludes that the “United Kingdom has an

extremely close and valuable relationship with the U.S.”9 In the same vein, Chatham

House’s report on UK Foreign Policy: Statements by the Three Main Political Parties,

from 2010, offers policy highlights from all three major UK political parties, to include

party manifestos.

E. METHODS AND SOURCES

The thesis will be written as a contemporary historical study of British policy and

strategy; that is, policy analysis through historical monographs as well as works of

contemporary history on a more or less scholarly basis, as well as public government

documents. This thesis will proceed in a chronological manner, to begin with the Special

Relationship in the early twentieth century and continuing through the present day, 2011.

To be sure, the major portion of the thesis will be dedicated to the years 2001 through

2011, when the three major cases took place. However, the chronological approach will

help illuminate the evolution of the Special Relationship in the last ten years, as well as

providing context for the changes that the case studies reveal.

Some relevant and reliable online sources that will be incorporated into the thesis

include, but are not limited to, the Chatham House Organization (The Royal Institute of

7 Dobson, Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century, 168. 8 Louis and Bull, The Special Relationship, vi–xi. 9 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-US Relations: Government Response to the Committee's Sixth

Report of Session 2009-10: Third Special Report of Session 2009-10. (London: Stationery Office, 2010).

8

International Affairs, http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/), and British public documents to

include the Iraq Inquiry (http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/), which examines British

involvement in the War in Iraq and the circumstances leading up to the 2003 invasion.

The British political party websites will also be consulted in crafting the thesis: The

Conservative Party (http://www.conservatives.com/), The Liberal Democratic (LibDems)

Party (http://www.libdems.org.uk/home.aspx), and the Labour Party

(http://www.labour.org.uk/).

Such contemporary, mainstream British media sources as the BBC, the Telegraph

(London), the Times (London), and the Independent (London), will be incorporated into

the thesis. Each media outlet has a distinct perspective on domestic politics and foreign

relations, given each media outlet’s political affiliations, and will provide updated views

of each of the political parties as the events in the thesis took place. The Telegraph is a

politically conservative newspaper, while the Times, traditionally a Conservative party

supporter, came out for the Labour party during the 2001 and 2005 general elections. In

2010, the Times voted for the Conservative party. Although the Independent does not

pledge its support to any one British political party, the Independent leans towards the

Liberal Democratic Party.

In addition to the major works cited in the literature review, other authors will be

considered on the topic, to include John Lamberton Harper, Wallace J. Thies, Anand

Menon, Ryan C. Hendrickson, and William Wallace, in addition to the main scholarly

works of John Baylis, John Dumbrell, Alan P. Dobson, D. Cameron Watt, William Roger

Louis and Hedley Bull.

F. THESIS OVERVIEW

This thesis is organized into seven chapters. The first chapter consists of the

introduction, detailing how the thesis will proceed. The second chapter addresses the

historical background of the Special Relationship by briefly examining two periods in

U.S.-UK relations: the years 1900 through 2000 and the years 2001 through the present

9

day, 2011. The second part of the second chapter will discuss the foundations of the

Special Relationship, notably the shared values, traditions, and institutions of the United

States and the United Kingdom.

The third chapter will address the three major British political parties

(Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Labour) and the British perspective on the

Special Relationship. British domestic politics is linked to the foreign policy decisions of

the government of the United Kingdom and is therefore necessary to discuss in relation to

the Special Relationship.

Chapters IV through VI will explore the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya,

respectively, by examining the relevant events and personalities in the United States and

the United Kingdom and tracing the changing (and unchanging) aspects of the special

relationship from the British perspective. Exploring how the values, traditions, and

interests have evolved or remained the same throughout the three cases is of utmost

significance.

The final chapter/conclusion will focus on the British perspective of the special

relationship to discuss the similarities and differences between the three case studies,

address how the special relationship has evolved, and address how and why the special

relationship will endure in the twenty-first century from the point of view of the British.

10


11

II. HISTORY OF THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP

A. INTRODUCTION

On 5 March in 1946, Winston Churchill made his Sinews of Peace Address at

Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. He thereby made the first reference to the

Special Relationship. He said: “Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous

rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal

association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between

the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.”10 Although U.S.-UK

diplomatic relations as sovereign nation states can be traced to the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries, Churchill’s speech and coining of the phrase Special Relationship

solidified the post war bilateral relationship between the United States and the United

Kingdom into the Euro-Atlantic and International system of states in a manner that

contrasted with the discord that operated in the era after 1919 until 1941.

The Special Relationship has been a partnership built on common values and

institutions between the two nation-states, to include cultural, economic, political,

diplomatic, security, and military facets and aspects. The Special Relationship has not

always had an easy road to travel given the circumstances of war, peace, and change over

the last century in which the United Kingdom lost its empire and the United States

acquired a sphere of influence and a role of leadership in the era of total war. After the

Second World War, the Special Relationship became closer for a number of reasons, one

of which was the threat posed by the Soviets to Euro-Atlantic security. It was during this

time that Britain proved to be “one of the most stalwart of America’s European allies”

and moreover, “the one best-placed to support the United States within and outside the

Atlantic area.”11 However, with the cooling of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall,

10 Churchill, “The Sinews of Peace Address.” 11 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations, 11; Dumbrell, The Special Relationship, 4.

12

and the end of the communism on the European continent, the post-modern world has

created a new international order in which new allies and adversaries challenge the long-

standing Special Relationship.

This thesis analyzes the Special Relationship as an unparalleled bilateral

relationship between two of the most powerful nation-states in the world with a common

history of cooperation over one hundred years in the making. The shared traditions,

values, institutions, and personalities form the foundation for the analysis, depicting the

very essence of the Special Relationship in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The

Special Relationship under the leadership of President George W. Bush and Prime

Minister Tony Blair during the Iraq Conflict provides a worthwhile case study detailing a

period of time wherein U.S.-UK relations were tested and tried in both the Euro-Atlantic

and International arenas. The British perceptions of the relationship during the period of

2003 through 2007 reflect both favorable and unfavorable critiques as well as notions of

the greater European anti-Americanism, primarily the French and British variant, which

have revealed the strength of the Special Relationship in the midst of negative attitudes

and perspectives toward the United States. Despite the claims of U.S. unilateralism,

protectionism, and isolationism, the Special Relationship endures as an example of a

successful partnership that remains an integral and fundamental part of Euro-Atlantic and

International relations.

B. BACKGROUND ON THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: TRADITIONS, VALUES, INSTITUTIONS, AND PERSONALITIES

The Special Relationship is founded on a rich history of shared values, traditions,

and institutions in which personalities have played an exceptionally important role in how

the partnership has been conducted and how it has operated throughout the history of the

Special Relationship. The ideals and values of democracy, individual rights, rule of law,

and free will all account for the primary foundation upon which the Special Relationship

has been built upon.

The Special Relationship is a unique partnership built on common values and

ideals that span a number of ties and connections across the board from cultural and

13

historical ties to security and defense related connections and institutions. These common

values became the cornerstone for the Special Relationship and thus, for the institutions

created and shared by the United States and the United Kingdom which reflected these

values, to include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the United

Nations (UN), among others.12

With its origins in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries through the relations

between the United States and Britain, the Special Relationship of the modern era came

into existence during the Second World War and was formally recognized in Churchill’s

address, Sinews of Peace. The interactions between Churchill and President Franklin D.

Roosevelt (FDR) during the Second World War revealed the true nature of the modern

Special Relationship and how personalities, policies, and agreements played an important

role in establishing the partnership and how it would proceed from this period onward.

An example of Churchill and FDR’s cooperation is detailed in John Lamberton Harper’s

book, American Visions of Europe, wherein U.S.-UK relations are characterized by the

bilateral agreements signed by the two leaders in an effort to combat the threats that

affected both countries.13 These included the Quebec Agreement and the Hyde Park

Agreement, which dealt with the exchange of information regarding atomic power.14

The historical character and nature of the Special Relationship is of particular

interest. In the late 1890s, a series of events occurred, to include the Boer and Spanish

American Wars, which let Britain and the World know that the United States wanted its

own place in the International arena as well as demonstrated that the place of the British

Empire was far from certain on the eve of the twentieth century. After the First World

War and most certainly after the Second World War, there was a shift of power from the

British to the Americans making the Americans the dominant partner in U.S.-UK

relations.

12 See Ian Q.R. Thomas, The Promise of Alliance: NATO and the Political Imagination, (Lanham:

Rowman & Littlefield, 1997); Wallace J. Thies, Friendly Rivals: Bargaining and Burden-Shifting in NATO, (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2003); and Ryan C. Hendrickson, Diplomacy and War at NATO: The Secretary General and Military Action after the Cold War (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2006).

13 John Lamberton Harper, American Visions of Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 109–111.

14 Harper, American Visions of Europe, 109–111.

14

Dr. Robin Niblett of Chatham articulated this point, in 2009, in his written

testimony to the House of Commons on the basis and nature of the UK-U.S. relationship.

He stated “successive British Governments realized that they no longer had the capacity

to protect or project British interests around the world, and acquiesced in the replacement

of Britain by the United States as the world’s dominant power.”15 Furthermore, “the

United Kingdom believed that the most direct threat to British and European security—

that of the Soviet military aggression and/or political subversion—could only be

confronted if the United States were tightly woven into a transatlantic alliance whose

principal focus was the defense of Europe and the broader Atlantic community.”16

The First World War made the United States from a debtor into a creditor, and

rendered the multilateral issue of war debts among the victors and the defeated into an

issue of statecraft, which equated financial power to world power.17 The United States

provided countries in need with money and when the war was over, Britain, among

others, was indebted to the United States.18 During the Second World War, the United

States was once again the provider of loans to countries who required funds, thereby,

establishing the U.S.’s place in the international arena through financial power.19

In 1919, in the period following the First World War, “Anglo-American relations

had been cool and often suspicious,” according to British historian, David Reynolds.20

Reynolds sums up the period of the 1920s and 1930s quite succinctly by stating,

“America’s ‘betrayal’ of the League of Nations was only the first in a series of U.S.

actions—over war debts, naval rivalry, the 1931–1932 Manchurian crisis, and the

Depression—that convinced British leaders that the United States could not be relied

15 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-US Relations, 11. 16 Ibid. 17 Kathleen Burk, “Old World, New World: Great Britain and America from the beginning,” in

America’s ‘Special Relationships’: Foreign and Domestic Aspects of the Politics of Alliance, edited by John Dumbrell and Axel R. Schafer (Oxon: Routledge, 2009), 34.

18 Burk, “Old World, New World,” 34. 19 Ibid. 20 David Reynolds, “1940: Fulcrum of the Twentieth Century?,” International Affairs, 66:2 (1990),

331.

15

upon.”21 However, the result of events in 1940, namely the realization by the British that

fighting a war alone was not an option and a closer relationship with the United States

was necessary for a favorable outcome.22

The Second World War began a tradition of junior and senior partners in an

alliance, as was portrayed by the role of the Americans and British in military and policy

making circles as well as between the personalities in command both politically and

militarily.23 The example of George Marshall and Ernest Bevin in the founding of

NATO along with the role of U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson in supporting the

transatlantic alliance loom large in the bonds established by the United States and United

Kingdom not only in a transatlantic alliance of junior to senior partner, but in the makings

of new institutions based on the principles of the Special Relationship.24 The role of the

United States as the senior partner became solidified through the events of the 1950s–

1970s and has continued as such until the present day.

During the Second World War, the “Anglo-American cooperation grew out of a

sense of shared threat and mutual need.”25 The shared traditions between both countries

aided in solidifying the alliance. A shared tradition of liberal, capitalist democracy and a

shared language were some of these traditions.26 During the Cold War era, the United

States–UK relationship continued to flourish given the fact that the United States and the

United Kingdom were diametrically opposed to the Soviet Union and communism. They

continued cooperating in the sphere intelligence with the signed of the UK-U.S.

Agreement of 1947, in addition to “naval cooperation and alliance on the ground in the

21 David Reynolds, “1940: Fulcrum of the Twentieth Century,” 331. 22 Ibid., 332. 23 Mark A. Stoler, Allies and Adversaries: The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Grand Alliance, and U.S.

Strategy in World War II, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2000), 120–122. 24 Thies, Friendly Rivals, 46. 25 David Reynolds, “Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Wartime Anglo-American. Alliance, 1939–1945:

Towards a New Synthesis,” in William Roger Louis and Hedley Bull, ed., The ‘Special Relationship’: Anglo-American Relations since 1945 (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986), 39.

26 Reynolds, “Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Wartime Anglo-American Alliance,” 39.

16

Korean War.”27 U.S. air bases in the United Kingdom that served as “staging posts to re-

supply American forces in Germany as well as for conventional and nuclear bombers to

deter a Soviet advance across Germany, made the United Kingdom a crucial factor in

maintaining a link between the North American continent and the renewed U.S.

commitment to European defense.”28 The United Kingdom provided the “geographic as

well as political ‘bridge’ between the American and European continents, holding the

newly-imagined Atlantic Community together.”29

While British scholars such as John Dumbrell promote the notion of a parent-and-

child relationship to describe the Special Relationship, such others as Douglas Hurd, the

former British Foreign Secretary, prefer to characterize the Special Relationship as one of

partners, where each partner has a role as either the junior or senior partner.30,31 The idea

of the Special Relationship as a partnership of junior to senior is of utmost importance in

the twenty-first century, given the circumstances surrounding the Special Relationship

during the Iraq War, specifically with the advent of the perception of the British

government as a “poodle” to the U.S. administration and how personalities played into

this perception.32

Although the role of personalities forms only one part of the greater Special

Relationship, such personalities play a central role in how the alliance is carried out

through the events and crises it has repeatedly faced. In 2006, the British Secretary of

State for Defense, Liam Fox, characterized the Special Relationship with the following:

The story of the Special Relationship can be depicted in light and attractive colors: the triumph of noble ideals, sacrifices rewarded, friendships forged and not forgotten. Together, America and Britain have

27 William Wallace and Tim Oliver, “A Bridge Too Far: The United Kingdom and the Transatlantic

Relationship,” in David M. Andrews, ed., The Atlantic Alliance Under Stress: US-European Relations after Iraq (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 154.

28 Wallace and Oliver, A Bridge Too Far, 155. 29 Ibid. 30 John Dumbrell, “Hating Bush, supporting Washington: George W. Bush, anti-Americanism and the

U.S.-UK special relationship” in America’s ‘Special Relationships’: Foreign and Domestic Aspects of the Politics of Alliance, ed., John Dumbrell and Axel R. Schafer (Oxon: Routledge, 2009), 47-48.

31 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-US Relations, 63. 32 Ibid.,6.

17

helped remake much of the world in the image of liberty and democracy. The rule of law, rights of property, respect for individual rights—these formative ideas have transformed the prospects of nations that lived in the darkness of fear and despair.33

One of the essential elements of the “Special Relationship,” as described by Fox

was that of “friendships forged and not forgotten.”34 This idea of friendships leads to an

important aspect of the U.S.-UK relationship, which is that of personalities. Throughout

the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, personalities on both sides of the Atlantic have

had a positive effect and lasting impression on the relationship. Close friendships and

working alliances between the countries’ leaders have been one of the hallmarks of the

U.S.-UK relationship.

Among the most notable personalities that depicted the Special Relationship after

Churchill and FDR, were Prime Minister Anthony Eden and President Dwight D.

Eisenhower; Prime Minister Harold MacMillan and President John F. Kennedy; Prime

Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan; Prime Minister Tony Blair

and Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.35,36

The events of 9/11 marked a turning point in the history of the Special

Relationship. The war in Afghanistan and the subsequent war in Iraq were especially

difficult on the Special Relationship both domestically and internationally. Throughout

the aftermath of 9/11, the Special Relationship has undergone serious scrutiny from both

sides of the Atlantic and from allies and enemies in the International arena. The case of

Bush and Blair during the Iraq War illuminate how the traditions, values, institutions, and

personalities of the Special Relationship cooperate and collaborate during one of the most

important yet critiqued and televised events in modern Euro-Atlantic history.

33 Liam Fox, “Security and Defense: Making Sense of the Special Relationship,” Heritage Lectures,

939 (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 2006), 2. 34 Fox, Security and Defense, 2. 35 John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq

(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 5. 36 Tim Shipman, “History of Britain’s special relationship with America,” The Telegraph, 1 March

2009, accessed 2 September 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4885895/History-of-Britains-special-relationship-with-America.html.

18


19

III. POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

A. INTRODUCTION

The three leading political parties in the United Kingdom, are also the largest, and

these comprise the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrat Party.

This chapter treats the parties’ histories, along with their 2010 party manifestos, foreign

policy philosophies, and postures on global security and reform of the international

system. Such material is essential to understand these main political parties and their role

in the British domestic and international political system. These factors ultimately affect

the foreign policies and actions of the British government in bilateral relations and are

essential for analysis by a U.S. officer entrusted with the execution of security and

defense affairs. The British Parliament as the queen of all parliaments, and like the U.S.

Congress, is center of the United Kingdom’s democratic institution of government, and

inevitably plays an important role in the decision-making and policy-making institutions

of the government with international effects of the most profound kind.

The United Kingdom is the world’s oldest parliamentary democracy. At the basis

of any parliamentary system of government are the political parties that vie for positions

of power throughout that system.37 Political parties are particularly important in the

United Kingdom’s government, given that political parties in the United Kingdom are

domestically, regionally, and internationally focused.38 Domestic politics and policy in

the United Kingdom play a special role in the realization of international politics.

Furthermore, the three major political parties of the United Kingdom, the Conservative

Party, the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrat Party are of importance to the

37 Michael Gallagher, Michael Laver, and Peter Mair, Representative Government in Modern Europe:

Institutions, Parties, and Governments (New York: McGraw Hill, 2006), 187–189.

38 The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RUSI) Chatham House, Rethinking the UK’s International Ambitions and Choices: UK Foreign Policy: Statements by the Three Main Political Parties (London: Chatham House, August 2010), 2–14.

20

discussion of the Special Relationship, given their ability to affect foreign policy

decisions, by detailing each party’s primary preferences and stances towards the United

States.39

B. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

The Conservative Party is the “oldest political party in the world” and has its

origins in the seventeenth century, under the Tories.40 In the mid-1830s, Sir Robert Peel

“reinterpreted key elements of the Tory tradition to create the modern Conservative

Party, and led a reforming government” which brought in social reforms.41 In the 1860s,

Benjamin Disraeli further reformed the Conservative Party by adding “national and social

unity to the Party’s fundamental purposes.”42 Under Lord Salisbury and Alfred Balfour,

the Conservative Party was reformed again and focused on “empowering individuals and

communities.”43

In the twenty-first century, the Conservative Manifesto proposes the following:

A stronger Britain in a safer world: A Conservative government will defend our national security and support our brave Armed Forces in everything they do. We will promote our national interest with an active foreign policy. We will work constructively with the EU, but we will not hand over any more areas of power and we will never join the Euro. We will honor our aid commitments and make sure this money works for the poorest nations.44

William Hague, the current British First Secretary and Secretary of State for

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, presented the five key tenets for future Conservative

39 The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RUSI) Chatham House, Rethinking the UK’s

International Ambitions and Choices: UK Foreign Policy: Statements by the Three Main Political Parties, (London: Chatham House, August 2010), 2–14.

40 “History of the Conservatives,” Conservative Party, accessed 31 October 2011, http://www.conservatives.com/People/The_History_of_the_Conservatives/Origins.aspx.

41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 “The Conservative Manifesto 2010: Invitation to Join the Government of Britain,” Conservative

Party, 13 April 2010, accessed 31 October 2011, http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Manifesto.aspx, 103.

21

foreign policy in a number of speeches between 2007 and 2010, “A major reform of

decision-making in foreign policy, a renewed commitment to the transatlantic alliance,

the cementing of relationships with old allies and the elevation of links with new

partners, the reform and development of international institutions, including the European

Union, and the upholding of our values.”45 Throughout his speeches in 2009 and 2010,

Hague revealed his major commitment to the transatlantic alliance.

Regarding the topic of global security and reform of the international system on

the nature of twenty-first century power and threats, the Conservative Party states,

We no longer inhabit a world in which foreign and defense issues can be separated from domestically-generated threats. Instead we live in a world in which dangers, events and actions abroad are independent with threats to our security at home. We must meet the threats we face with a concerted response from the state. That response cannot just come from how we conduct our foreign affairs, or organize our defense and internal security - it must cut across energy, education, community cohesion, health, technology, international development and the environment too.46

Conservative party members who served in British government positions during

the last ten years include David Cameron, the current Prime Minister of the United

Kingdom, who assumed office on 11 May 2010 and also serves as the current Leader of

the Conservative Party, and William Hague, British First Secretary and Secretary of State

for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 10 May 2010 until the present.

C. THE LABOUR PARTY

In 1900, “working people, trade unionists, and socialists, united by the goal of

changing the British Parliament to represent the interests of everybody,” founded the

45 Chatham House, 6. William Hague’s quotation, which is detailed above is documented in the

Chatham House document on page 6, along with additional information on speeches given in 2007 and 2009. The information on the speeches are cited verbatim from the Chatham House document: “William Hague, The Foreign Policy Framework of a New Conservative Government, speech at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), London, 10 March 2010. For an earlier exposition of the five themes see: William Hague, ‘The Future of British Foreign Policy with a Conservative Government,’ speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 21 July 2009 and William Hague, ‘Thinking Ahead: The Foreign Policy Of The Next Conservative Government,’ speech at Chatham House, London, 31 January 2007.”

46 “The Conservative Manifesto 2010.”

22

Labour Party as part of the socialist movement of the late nineteenth century in the wake

of industrialization and the failures of liberals in the second half of the same century.47

Throughout the last one hundred years, the Labour Party has been involved in the

“establishment of the National Health Service, the enshrining in law of equality of

opportunity for all and the creation and maintenance of an empowering welfare state.”48

The Labour party also played a central role in the anti-communism of the early Cold War,

and the foundation of the Atlantic alliance. As such, it has a major stake in the special

relationship begun under the conservative Winston Churchill.

In the twenty-first century, the Labour Party is committed to “the challenge for

Britain: To harness our strengths and values, as we develop Britain’s world role in a

global era, using our alliances and networks in order to promote security, economic

prosperity, development and to safeguard the environment.”49 With respect to the

Foreign Policy philosophy of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown’s speech in 2007

highlights the party’s philosophy of “hard-headed internationalism.”50 Brown stated that

his approach was

… internationalist because global challenges need global solutions and nations must cooperate across borders - often with hard-headed intervention - to give expression to our shared interests and shared values; - hard-headed because we will not shirk from the difficult long term decisions and because only through reform of our international rules and institutions will we achieve concrete, on-the-ground results.51

On the topic of global security and reform of the international system, the Labour

party contends the following: “Human rights and democracy are a central feature of our

foreign policy for a simple reason—we believe human rights are universal and it is the

47 “History of the Labour Party,” Labour Party, accessed 31 October 2011,

http://www.labour.org.uk/history_of_the_labour_party. 48 Ibid. 49 “The Labour Election Manifesto 2010: A Future Fair for All,” Labour Party, 12 April 2010,

accessed 24 October 2011, http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf, 66.

50 Chatham House, 2.

51 Ibid.

23

job of strong and mature democracies to support the development of free societies

everywhere—while upholding our own legal and moral obligations.”52

Labour Party members who served in British government positions during the last

ten years include Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who was in office

from 2 May 1997 until 27 June 2007, during which time he served as the leader of the

Labour Party; Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who was in office

from 27 June 2007 until 11 May 2010, when he served as the leader of the Labour Party;

and David Miliband, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,

who was in office from 28 June 2007 to 11 May 2010 and had previously served as the

United Kingdom Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

D. THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY

The Liberal Democrat Party originated in 1988 with the merger between the

Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party.53 The Liberal party has a long tradition in

British politics, reaching back to the early nineteenth century. The Liberal Democrat

Party is considered to be the center party between the Conservative and Labour parties. In

2010, the Liberal Democrat Party manifesto stated, “Britain must work together with our

partners abroad if we are to have the best hope of meeting the challenges the world faces.

We believe in freedom, justice, prosperity and human rights for all and will do all we can

to work towards a world where these hopes become reality.”54

The Liberal Democrat Party is “wary of the implications of a ‘subservient

relationship with the United States.,” an attitude that recalls a school of policy in British

statecraft since at least the Suez debacle in 1956 when the United States could be said to

have pulled the rug out from under its Anglo-Saxon ally over Nasser and the canal.55 In

2010, in a speech at Chatham House, Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg suggested that “what

52 Labour Party Manifesto, 68; also cited in Chatham House’s document.

53 David Boothroyd, Politico’s Guide to the History of British Political Parties (London: Politico’s Publishing, 2001), 145.

54 “Liberal Democrat Election Manifesto 2010: Change that works for you. Building a Fairer Britain,” Liberal Democrat Party, 14 April 2010, accessed 31 October 2011, 56.


24

Britain requires is “self-confidence, a rebalanced partnership with the United States, a

repatriated foreign policy which is in British interests alone, articulated through a strong,

united and forceful EU.”56

Regarding global security and reform of the international system, the Liberal

Democrat party manifesto proposal states it will

… support efforts to create an International Arms Trade Treaty; will establish a ‘code of conduct’ for arms brokers; propose a ‘full judicial inquiry into allegations of British complicity in torture and state kidnapping’; the only party to rule out military action in Iran, instead placing an emphasis on diplomatic engagement; and committed to the two-state solution for Israel-Palestine, and acting through the EU to ‘put pressure on Israel and Egypt to end the blockade of Gaza.’57

Liberal Democrat Party members who served in British government positions

during the last ten years include Nicholas “Nick” Clegg, the current Deputy Prime

Minister of the United Kingdom, who assumed office on 11 May 2010 and also serves as

Lord President of the Council, Minister for Constitutional and Political Reform, and as

leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, and Edward Davey, who assumed office on 20 May

2010 as the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Business,

Innovation and Skills.

E. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrat

Party together provide an invaluable service to the British government and its people by

the articulation of their party platforms and manifestos. Each parties’ attention to

domestic, regional, and international issues provides the necessary foundation from

which the British government and its people are able to identify and coalesce those

aspects of international policy, security, and defense each are willing to agree on and feel

the government should participate in to function coherently and comprehensively,

according to the norms of British politics and society.


57 Ibid., 11.

25

Political parties are an important part of British policy and statecraft in which

parties are able to affect the international world order and most specifically, in this case,

that of the Special Relationship. Whether the British government and its people choose to

support or challenge the status quo of an agreement or alliance is, for the most part, in the

hands of the political parties who are able to garner the support needed for such an action.

The most recent example of the political parties ability to affect international

norms and alliances came in May 2010, when newly appointed Prime Minister David

Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Clegg signed the Coalition Agreement, a combined

Conservative party and Liberal Democrat party program for the British government for

the next five years.58 In the Coalition Agreement, relations between the United Kingdom

and the United States are among the ten priorities in the Foreign Affairs portion of the

document.59 The intent of the current British government is on maintaining “a strong,

close, and frank relationship with the United States.”60 The acknowledgement by the two

parties of the British Coalition government is an indication of the continued commitment

of the United Kingdom in the Special Relationship with the United States and

furthermore, an indication of the power of political parties in Britain.

58 “The Coalition: Our Programme for Government,” Liberal Democrats, Crown Copyright;

Publication Date May 2010, accessed 15 August 2011, http://www.libdems.org.uk/coalition_agreement.aspx, 1–35.

59 “The Coalition Agreement.”

60 Ibid.

26


27

IV. IRAQ

A. INTRODUCTION

On 20 March 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq

opening a new and troubling chapter in the Special Relationship. The invasion was based

on official allegations of Iraq’s ability to employ weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

(later disproven by fact), which inevitably posed a direct threat to the United States and

the United Kingdom in the post 11 September 2001 cosmos of war and peace. The Iraq

War, which defied the efforts of United States and United Kingdom planners to predict

its outcome, prove to be a pivotal event in the history of the Special Relationship.

Exploring some British perceptions of the Special Relationship during the Iraq War gives

a view of the Special Relationship from the standpoint of the junior partner, which

supported the senior partner resolutely through an unpopular war from the standpoint of

the British public.

The protraction and problems of the Iraq War placed a heavy burden on the

Special Relationship. In this chapter, the Special Relationship will be revealed from the

viewpoint of the Blair-Bush Relationship, the Brown–Bush Relationship, and the

inquiries conducted by the Government of the United Kingdom from 2009 and 2010.

Those inquiries addressed the nature, perceptions, and role of the Special Relationship

during the Iraq War.

B. THE BLAIR–BUSH RELATIONSHIP

In the wake of the bin Laden assault on the United State’s east coast, the Special

Relationship became closer. Prime Minister Blair’s understanding of the trauma and

impact of 9/11 on the American people and his shared vision of democracy in the Middle

East to be achieved by defusing the fundamentalist Islamic threat, made the Blair-Bush

bond closer than the era of accord of the Blair-Clinton bond.61 According to the

61 Jane M.O. Sharp. Tony Blair, Iraq, and the Special Relationship: Poodle or Partner? International

Journal 59, no. 1 (2003/2004): 62.

28

Telegraph, Blair and Bush agreed on the issues of terrorism and Iraq and reported

“Britain’s support has never been more appreciated.”62 In the same article, however, the

Telegraph reported that the failures of Blair to “win favors from Washington in return did

more to undermine the Special Relationship in the eyes of the British public than

anything else since Suez.”63 Although it is clear that Blair was doing his best to support

Bush in what was understood as an international threat, his domestic support was

dwindling for various reasons and his ability effectively to act as a partner in a bilateral

relationship was questioned, both during his time in office and after.

According to John Dumbrell, “Blair’s commitment to Washington’s War on

Terror was controversial and highly personal. The Special Relationship, however,

provided the context for the commitment.”64

1. The “Inevitable” United Kingdom Support for War

Various British scholars have argued the word “inevitable” should not be used in

the case of British support to the United States. They state that the idea of British support

to the War in Iraq as “inevitable” is incorrect and misleading given the case of the

Falklands/Malvinas War in 1982, an event that had slipped from the minds of most but

illustrated the Reagan Thatcher chapter of the Special Relationship three decades ago.

During the Falklands/Malvinas war, the United States did not initially support British

military objectives, citing the conflict as a modern manifestation of Britain’s imperial

past and also as a manifestation of divergences within the U.S. foreign policy

establishment, especially between the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Jeanne

Kirkpatrick, as a leading Latin Americanist, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar

62 Tim Shipman, “History of Britain’s special relationship with America,” The Telegraph, 1 March

2009, accessed 2 September 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4885895/History-of-Britains-special-relationship-with-America.html, 1–3.

63 The Telegraph, 3. 64 John Dumbrell. “Working with Allies: The United States, the United Kingdom, and the War on

Terror,” Politics & Policy 34, no. 2 (2006): 457.

29

Weinberger as a representative in said epoch of the Special Relationship.65 During that

time, the Reagan administration’s Latin Americanist faction was vying for neutrality and

therefore was not willing to get involved in the conflict.66 It was only later in the conflict

that the United States sided with the United Kingdom due to its military and intelligence

agreements, but the United States did not send ground troops to assist the British military

in the Falkands.67 Another factor in 1982 was the question of NATO cohesion at the

time of the intermediate nuclear forces crisis, at which time the humiliation of the United

Kingdom would have damaged NATO in the face of Soviet missiles.

The Falklands/Malvinas War revealed the inability of the United Kingdom to act

independently from the United States in its own conflicts. However, given the realization

of U.S. support during the Falklands war, neither the United Kingdom nor the United

States, given the United Kingdom’s lack of support during the Vietnam conflict, were to

assume either would necessarily come to the other’s rescue or assistance during a conflict

or war.68 In the post Cold-War environment of the 1990s, and especially in the twenty-

first century, the Special Relationship would be strikingly different from what it had been

during the Vietnam and Falklands/Malvinas wars.

Given the result of the Falklands/Malvinas War, support by the United States to

the United Kingdom was not inevitable. Therefore, the question of why the United

Kingdom became involved in supporting the war in Iraq, in 2003 is of importance. The

personal level of the Special Relationship is that Blair’s support to the United States was

part of his own understanding of UK policy towards the United States69 Although the

U.S. would be recognized the world over as the principal ally of the United Kingdom, the

relationship does not stipulate that the United Kingdom will respond automatically at the

least demand by the U.S. to support its national objectives.70

65 John Dumbrell, A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq

(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) 188. 66 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies,” 461. 67 Ibid. 68 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 187. 69 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies,” 462. 70 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 188.

30

2. Blair’s Mission, Priorities, and Perceptions

The United Kingdom supported the United States in the second Gulf War of

1990–1991, in the intervention in Afghanistan in 2001–2, and in the Iraq campaign in

2003. Blair’s own mission, priorities, and perceptions of the Global War on Terror and, in

this case, the Iraq War, were indicative of the practice of the Special Relationship, both

domestically and internationally. Blair proved his loyalty at home as an ardent supporter

of the U.S., and internationally, most notably, by the consistent support to the United

States in the UN Security Council in a decisive phase when the French defected to the

German-Russian pact against the Bush policies.71

The Special Relationship continued to endure at the practical and operational

level throughout the years; even when at times the strategic and personal levels were not

at their best. Dumbrell points to the facet of military and intelligence cooperation within

the greater Special Relationship as an important part of the relationship, but plainly not

the reason for fighting wars on each other’s behalf.72 Furthermore, Dumbrell states,

“Bureaucratic intertwining reinforces mutual cooperation. Yet intelligence sharing does

not lead automatically to providing military support, especially in the extremely

controversial circumstances of the 2003 Iraqi invasion.”73 Therefore, there needs to be

another reason for the level of involvement by the United Kingdom in the Global War on

Terror. The explanation lies in Blair himself and his idea of statecraft, intervention and

the attempt to advance the interests of United Kingdom in the face of the French and the

Germans within the EU.

In explaining why Blair supported the United States for the Iraqi invasion,

Dumbrell, and others, contend that it was a matter that “can only be explained in highly

personal terms.”74 Blair’s policy “reflected his personal interpretation of ‘Special

Relationship’ responsibilities.”75 Blair’s policy, therefore, was founded on the notion

71 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies,” 459. 72 Ibid., 461. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid., 462. 75 Ibid.

31

that “British interests are best served by closeness between Britain and the Unites

States.”76 As had been the case before, when speaking to the closeness of the Special

Relationship and what the benefits were for the United Kingdom, Dumbrell states,

“proximity to power allows Britain ‘to punch above its international weight.’”77 And this

fact contrasts with the policies of Schroeder and Chirac in league with Putin in the years

2002–2003, as well as the earlier episode of French-German ambivalence to Atlanticism

in the 1960s and 1970s.

However, British policymakers have seen “British influence as a good in itself;

not only in terms of Britain’s global profile, but also in terms of substantive impacting

[sic] on U.S. policy.”78 During the War on Terror, including the invasion of Iraq, Blair

“saw strong British involvement in all aspects as a good in itself.”79 This “faith in the

inherit benefits of British influence, extending beyond any narrow definition of the

‘British interest,’ is a persistent, almost defining feature in British views of the Special

Relationship.”80

In the case of the Iraq War in 2003, the goal of the U.S. was regime change,

“whereby evidence or the lack of it, regarding the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass

destruction or of any connection between Baghdad and 9/11, was secondary.”81 Blair’s

priorities, however, were to “support America, to push Washington away from

unilateralism and, if at all possible, to bring British and Western European opinion

behind Washington.”82

76 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies,” 462. 77 Ibid. 78 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies,” 462. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid., 463. 81 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 155. 82 Ibid.

32

Yet, another reason for Blair’s support came from “his personal conviction that

Saddam Hussein’s regime was a threat to global security.”83

Blair’s own perceptions of the Special Relationship during this time and the

perceived “reasoning behind Blair’s reaction to Bush’s reaction to 9/11 was complex”

and of utmost importance to defining the Special Relationship.84 There were three parts

to Blair’s reasoning which were—(1) serving as the “Atlantic Bridge,” (2) the Greeks and

Romans analogy to express British influence, and (3) Blair’s own beliefs, previously

addressed, which included international change and world order.85

In the first of the three components of Blair’s reasoning, the Prime Minister

perceived his role as the “encourager of transatlantic mutuality,” which has been a tenet

of British foreign and security policy more or less since 1941 or so.86 Through Blair, the

transatlantic dialogue between Europe and the U.S. would continue to prosper and

become closer in the face of new threats. Echoing the rhetoric and views of Prime

Minister Harold Macmillan in the era after Suez in the late 1950s, Blair pursued a

strategy of “Greeks and Romans.” Greeks were to symbolize the British and Romans to

symbolize the Americans, to indicate how the British would influence American policy.87

Through this component of the reasoning, Blair would press the U.S. for assistance and

cooperation for his international agenda, which dealt with issues of multilateralism, the

Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and aid to Africa.88

Lastly, Blair’s own beliefs became an important part of his reason for supporting

the United States. Blair’s support was more than an issue of supporting “British

obligations under the Special Relationship,” but about his own beliefs regarding

83 William Wallace and Tim Oliver, “A Bridge Too Far: The United Kingdom and the Transatlantic

Relationship,” in David M. Andrews, ed., The Atlantic Alliance Under Stress: US-European Relations after Iraq (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 152.

84 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 151. 85 Ibid., 151. 86 Ibid. 87 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies,” 463. 88 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 152.

33

international change and world order.89 As was previously stated, Blair’s “decision for

war stemmed from his genuine and profound apprehensions, which he certainly shared

with Bush, about Saddam’s links with terrorism, and about the possibility of WMDs

falling into terrorist hands,” as well as the “state of contemporary politics.”90

3. Perceptions of the Bush Administration

The position of the United States is somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not the

United States wanted the United Kingdom involved in the Iraq invasion. The Republicans

had embraced the principle of the mission defines the coalition, and stood with a

skeptical or hostile attitude to the experience of NATO and its consultation and

consensus. While reports of Donald Rumsfeld’s comments to the British remain unclear

regarding the U.S.’s ability to go forward without the British, as being helpful or hurtful,

other sources within the Bush administration, including that of the President’s own

rhetoric, offer insight into the divided government in Washington DC that subsumed the

U.S. at the time of the Iraq invasion.91

Dumbrell argues “Britain participated in the Iraq invasion despite President

Bush’s explicit concern that Blair’s government would suffer politically.”92 That being

said, “Blair was apparently given the explicit option of being involved only in an Iraqi

‘second wave’ as ‘peacekeepers or something.’”93 The fact that Bush was cognizant of

what participating in the invasion posed to Blair’s government is telling of his perhaps

under appreciated insight into the dynamics of alliance cohesion. It speaks to role of Bush

and his awareness of how Blair’s involvement in the Iraq invasion could mean troubles

for both his government and his career. If Bush had not cared, why would he even speak

to this point? Obviously, he did care, or at least he uttered the words, making it seem as if

he did. Moreover, Bush showed his insights into the dimension of domestic politics as a

89 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 152. 90 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies, 464. 91 Wallace and Oliver, “A Bridge Too Far,” 170. 92 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies,” 461. 93 Ibid.

34

feature of alliance cohesion, in this case, as concerns the Janus faced behavior of the

German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2001–2002. The latter did or did not promise

Bush support in the face of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, and then mounted an anti-U.S.

election campaign in the year 2002, which caused the collapse of the German–U.S.

relationship in the pact of weasel’s rhetoric of 2003.

The relationship between Blair and Bush has been characterized by an

unprecedented level of intimacy between presidents and prime ministers in the policy

decision-making process.94 However, the Blair-Bush relationship “exposed limits of

British influence over American policy.”95 Dumbrell contends correctly and with clear

insight that the role of the British Prime Minister in receiving aid to Africa or “altered

attitudes towards climate change” in exchange for the support for the invasion, “betrayed

both an exaggerated sense of Britain’s importance to the United States and an ignorance

of the American politics of separated powers, wherein the U.S. Congress holds the purse-

strings and the U.S. Senate ratifies treaties.”96

C. THE BROWN-BUSH RELATIONSHIP

Blair’s resignation in disgrace as Prime Minister in late June 2007 ushered in a

weakened socialist leadership in the United Kingdom less seized of foreign policy and

soon to be ensnared in the world financial crisis. Gordon Brown became the new Prime

Minister and his approach towards the Special Relationship was perceived as somewhat

different from Blair’s. Beginning with the use of rhetoric in the media and during his

speeches, Brown used different words and phrases to characterize the Special

Relationship. Instead of using the phrase “the Special Relationship,” Brown insisted on

depicting U.S.-UK relations in the form of a bilateral relationship.97 Rather than

continuing to use Blair’s “bridge” to symbolize the UK’s role between Europe and the

94 David Hastings Dunn, “UK-U.S. Relations After the Three Bs – Blair, Brown and Bush,” Defense

& Security Analysis 27, no. 1 (2011): 5–18. 95 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 158. 96 Ibid. 97 David Hastings Dunn, “The Double Interregnum: UK-U.S. relations beyond Blair and Bush,”

International Affairs 84, no. 6 (2008): 1136.

35

United States, Brown decided to use the image of a beacon, stating “our British values

should make us a beacon for Europe, America, and the rest of the world, building a pro-

Atlantic, pro-European consensus.”98 Brown continually spoke to the bonds between

Europe and America versus those of the United States and the United Kingdom.99 That

is, Brown, with his background in the treasury, had a more balanced sense of the role of

the EU in British policy than his ill-fated predecessor in the mode of Churchill and

Thatcher.

Brown decided to make his separation from the former Prime Minister apparent in

other ways as well. Upon becoming Prime Minister, Brown appointed various critics of

the invasion of Iraq to prominent positions within his cabinet, to include John Denham,

David Miliband, and Mark Malloch Brown.100 John Denham had served in the Blair

Cabinet, however had resigned from his position over the issue of Iraq.101 David

Miliband, who was a critic of the UK policy in Iraq, was made Foreign Secretary, and

Mark Malloch Brown, the former UN Deputy Secretary General and ardent critic of the

Bush administration, minister for foreign affairs.102

The most visible example of Brown’s distance from the U.S. came from his first

meeting with Bush in 2007.103 Not only had Brown already met with both Angela

Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy prior to his meeting with Bush, (which signaled Brown’s

role for the U.S. in relation to his European counterparts,) there was not the special

personal connection between the two leaders that had been previously the case.104

With Brown as Prime Minister, “close military and intelligence cooperation

continued and the harmony of outlook on many international questions remained

98 Dunn, “The Double Interregnum,” 1134. 99 Ibid.,1136. 100 Ibid., 1135. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid. 103 Dunn, “The Double Interregnum,” 1136. 104 Ibid.

36

constant” with the exception of Iraq.105 According to Dunn, the “UK government

announced its intention to halve the British presence in Basra province and to withdraw

the forces there to the air station in an ‘oversight’ role.”106 Brown “sought to compensate

for it by announcing an increase of British troop numbers in Afghanistan.”107 His

decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan reflected his government’s views on the wars. While

the war in Afghanistan was being fought as the “good war,” the UK government

remained ambiguous in its support for military action in Iraq.108 The perception of the

United Kingdom as a “good and loyal ally” was maintained by the support of the United

Kingdom in Afghanistan.109 While maintaining this appearance, Brown was able to

lessen the UK government’s support to the war in Iraq.110

However, Dunn concludes, “steps taken to signal distance were more

presentational than substantive.”111 The Brown government kept military forces in Iraq,

but with a “reduced mandate and role…they were neither fully withdrawn nor fully

engaged.”112 This was indicative of the UK policy towards the United States at the

strategic level, at which the British government found itself struggling to carry out its

domestic and strategic objectives and policies.113 While attempting to be anti-Bush and

pro-American, the Brown government was unsuccessful at both.114

105 Ibid., 1136. 106 Ibid. 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid., 1137. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid.

37

D. THE ROLE OF THE INQUIRY: THE IRAQ INQUIRY AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS UK-U.S. RELATIONS INQUIRY

On 15 June 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated that an official inquiry on

the lessons learned from the Iraq War would be conducted by the British government and

chaired by Sir John Chilcot.115 The inquiry’s terms of reference included the following:

“the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, …the United Kingdom’s

involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to

establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be

learned.”116 The overall intent of the inquiry was to uncover the cause and effect of

intervention in the Iraq War to “help ensure that, if we (the British Government) face

similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to

those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.”117

Although the inquiry’s final report has not been written as of late 2011, nor has the

inquiry been debated in Parliament, the testimonies and evidence given thus far in the

inquiry suggest how decisions were made and the reasons behind those actions.

In this regard, one of the most important decision-makers and personalities in the

Iraq Inquiry has been Blair himself. His testimony on 29 January 2010, was particularly

illuminating to the position of the United Kingdom in the Iraq War along with his own

perceptions of the role of the United Kingdom in both the European system of nation-

states and the greater international system of states. During his interview, Blair stated that

he would not have done anything differently in either the prelude to the Iraq War in 2002

or during it in 2003.118 The former Prime Minister’s testimony during the Inquiry is

indicative of the strong relationship between the two countries, and how given the chance

to do it all again, the Prime Minister would act in the same manner in which he

115 The Iraq Inquiry, accessed 10 September 2011, www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/about.aspx. 116 “Terms of Reference,” The Iraq Inquiry, accessed 10 September 2011,

www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/about.aspx. 117 Ibid. 118 “Iraq inquiry hears defiant Blair say: I’d do it again” BBC, 29 January 2010, accessed 14

September 2011, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8485694.stm.

38

had acted previously. Furthermore, the values and traditions of the Special Relationship

are at the core of this argument for which Blair contended that the Iraqi people are today

better off than they were under Saddam’s regime.119

In July 2009, a second government inquiry was launched by the House of

Commons, Foreign Affairs Committee, to re-assess the state of the UK’s relationship

with its “most important bilateral ally,” the United States.120 The Global Security, UK-

U.S. Relations Inquiry was regarded as the last in a series of inquiries by the House of

Commons that began in 2001 and addressed the role of UK-U.S. relations since the

events of 9/11.121 According to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the fact that two

inquiries within the British government, the Iraq Inquiry and the UK-U.S. Relations

Inquiry, were being conducted at the same time, was purely coincidental.122 Each of the

inquiries addressed separate issues and although there would be some small overlap,

there would be no replication of work between the inquiries.123

The role of the UK-U.S. Relations Inquiry, was to identify the “the relationship

between the United Kingdom and the U.S., and the implications this has on foreign

policy.” Issues addressed in the Inquiry included the following:

• the basis of the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and the U.S.;

• United Kingdom and United States views on the nature and value of the bilateral relationship and the contribution of the UK-U.S. foreign policy relationship to global security;

• the extent to which UK and U.S. interests align in key foreign policy related areas including security, defense, and intelligence cooperation;

119 “Iraq inquiry hears defiant Blair say: I’d do it again” BBC, 29 January 2010, accessed 14

September 2011, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8485694.stm. 120 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations, 9. 121 Ibid. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid.

39

• the extent to which the United Kingdom is able to influence U.S. foreign policy and UK policy is influenced by the United States under the Obama Administration;

• the extent to which the Special Relationship still exists and the factors which determine this;

• the implications of any changes in the nature of the bilateral relationship for British foreign policy.124

Given the previous assertions and perceptions orchestrated to depict Britain as the

subservient partner in the Special Relationship, a number of testimonies regarding the

subject were considered and the Foreign Affairs Committee, concluded that,

The perception that the British Government was a subservient “poodle”to the U.S. Administration leading up to the period of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath is widespread both among the British public and overseas and that this perception, whatever its relation to reality, is deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the United Kingdom.125

With respect to the role of the leadership within the Special Relationship, the

Foreign Affairs Committee “concluded that the Prime Minister/President relationship is

an important aspect of the UK-U.S. relationship.”126 The Committee also concluded that

it was “equally important to ensure that the United Kingdom does not conduct foreign

policy on the basis of this relationship alone.”127 The Committee ended the topic of

leadership by addressing the role of Ministers, Parliament and Congress by stating that

“strong and enduring links are nurtured at the wider Ministerial level and between

Parliament and Congress,” thus, giving credence to the role of other government policy-

makers and decision makers in each of the countries.128

124 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations, 8–9. 125 Ibid., 6. 126 Ibid., 68. 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid.

40

1. The Role of the Junior Partner

Another important dimension of leadership, as detailed by former foreign minister

Douglas Hurd during his testimony, was the role of the junior partner. “He stated that

neither Winston Churchill nor Margaret Thatcher was by nature or temperament a junior

partner but they both learned reluctantly the art.”129 He contends that Blair did not learn

the art of being the junior partner and confused it with subservience instead of

subordination.130 From this subservience to the senior partner, came the notion of Britain

as a “poodle” during the Iraq War. According to the transcripts of the Inquiry, the view of

“British subservience” was not a unanimous sentiment by all the witnesses; however, it

was important enough to be addressed throughout not only this Inquiry, but the Iraq

Inquiry.131

The UK-U.S. Relations Inquiry “concluded that there are many lessons to be

learned from the UK’s political approach towards the United States in respect to the Iraq

War.”132 Much is left to the Iraq Inquiry to reveal the nature of the conflict from all

aspects of the UK government, however the UK-U.S. Relations Inquiry had its own

conclusions to make, which dealt specifically with the role of perception of the British

Government as a subservient “poodle.” A term that contrasted with the former glory of

Britain as a world power and recalled the sense of betrayal of Suez in 1956, or the

Skybolt Affair of 1962–3.

The role of British influence in U.S. policy is of particular interest and has an

important place in the context of the Iraq war, as well as the war in Afghanistan and the

conflict in Libya. “British and European politicians have been over-optimistic about the

extent of influence they have over the United States.”133 That being said, the Inquiry

“recommend(ed) that the Government (United Kingdom) continues its informed and

129 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations, 63. 130 Ibid. 131 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations, 63. 132 Ibid., 6. 133 Ibid.

41

measured approach to the United States whilst remaining mindful that the United States

is, and will continue to be, Britain’s most important ally.”134

Overall, the importance of these inquiries lies in the ability of the British

government and its institutions to address the last ten years as a point from which to learn

from both within their own domestic institutions, as well as their international

partnerships and alliances, specifically with the United States. Moreover, these inquiries

indicate the need of the British government to understand the past decisions of its

leadership and the need to address its relationships with its most important ally, the

United States, in an effort to continue the indispensible partnership well into the future.

E. CONCLUSION

During the Iraq War, the strategic level discussion appeared to have failed in

certain terms, while the substantive level of the Special Relationship, that of defense and

intelligence cooperation, among others, continued.135 At the strategic level, Blair

insisted, “A successful British foreign policy would emerge only out of a strong

commitment to both the United States and the EU.”136 Unfortunately, Blair was unable

to bridge the gap between the United States and the EU during his time as Prime

Minister. In the case of Brown and his government, Brown had failed to learn the lesson

that President Sarkozy did, which simply stated, was “you cannot hope to build a united

Europe that is divided towards the United States.”137

However, in terms of the Special Relationship, the United States and the United

Kingdom maintained the strongest bilateral relationship, due to the many facets of the

relationship that worked together and weathered the storm of the Iraq War and

international criticism.

134 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations, 63. 135 Dunn, “The Double Interregnum,” 1140. 136 Dumbrell, “Working with Allies,” 464. 137 Dunn, “The Double Interregnum,” 1139.

42


43

V. AFGHANISTAN

A. INTRODUCTION

Shortly after the assault upon the World Trade Center in New York City in

September 2001, Prime Minister Blair “pledged his solidarity with the United States” and

said, “we stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy,

and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world.”138 Relations

between the United Kingdom and the United States were instantly revived due to the

terrorist actions of the September 11 attacks.

On 7 October 2001, the campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan began and in

2003, the operation in Iraq signified a new stage amid peril of strategy and alliance

cohesion of the Special Relationship. The operation in Afghanistan revealed how the

Special Relationship aspired to fight on two fronts simultaneously as well as how the

“good war” in Afghanistan was preferred by Gordon Brown and other members of the

British government in 2006 to that of the war in Iraq.139 The Iraq mission was

questioned by both British officials and the public—a circumstance that recalled diverge

of alliance cohesion in the Second World War and the Korean conflict. For the British,

the primary mission arising from bin Laden terror was in Afghanistan. The bottom line

was that British elites and the public alike preferred fighting the war in Afghanistan more

so than fighting the war in Iraq.

Over and over again, the UK has been referred to by scholars of international

affairs as America’s closest ally.140 Throughout the last ten years, “Officials, diplomats,

and indeed political leaders have continued to share an internationalist worldview and

work diplomatically to advance a common view of the global order.”141 This being said,

138 Lawrence D. Freedman, “The Special Relationship, Then and Now,” Foreign Affairs 85, no. 3

(2006): 61. 139 Dunn, “The Double Interregnum,” 1136. 140 Ibid., 1137. 141 Dunn, “After the Three B’s,” 6.

44

“The collaboration on defense policy within NATO and bilaterally is more integrated

[with the USA] than with any other state, and the integration of their intelligence

operations is unprecedented in its scale and its trust.”142 Given these two statements, the

war in Afghanistan is an example of how officials, diplomats, and political leaders have

worked together, and moreover, how collaboration within NATO, has brought about a

deeper and more profound dialogue about the war and the Special Relationship.

This chapter explores the character of the Special Relationship in the past decade

shaped by the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, beginning with the relationship

between Bush and Blair in the context of the war in Afghanistan, the Brown Premiership,

addressing Bush and Obama’s presidencies, and the Cameron—Obama relationship. The

chapter will conclude by examining the role of the House of Commons’ UK-U.S.

Relations Inquiry of 2009–2010 and the role of the United Nations in the war in

Afghanistan with respect to the Special Relationship in the UN Security Council.

B. THE BLAIR-BUSH RELATIONSHIP

The Blair–Bush Relationship during the war in Afghanistan was another example

of the UK’s close relationship with the United States. As was the case in the war in Iraq,

Blair offered close support to the United States in Afghanistan.143 Dunn refers to the

most immediate legacy of the New Labour period as “the lasting impact of Blair’s

support in Iraq and Afghanistan.”144

Interestingly, regarding Blair’s role in the War on Terror was Blair’s ability to

communicate, more clearly than Washington, the intent of the war as not being “a

crusade against Islam.”145 Although some scholars and politicians argue that Blair’s

abilities to assist the U.S. held an important role in defining Britain’s influence on U.S.

foreign policy, Dumbrell suggests that by “seeking to broaden and soften the American

142 Dunn, “After the Three B’s,” 6. 143 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 6. 144 Dunn, “After the Three B’s,” 6. 145 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 155.

45

agenda, Blair opened himself to the charge of being taken for granted by Washington.”146

However, “after September 11, he gained increasing popularity and prestige within the

United States as a leader who stood four-square with the Americans, and indeed one who

could articulate the case for standing up to terrorists more fluently than their

president.”147 One could say that such a phenomenon reached back to the experience of

Churchill in the years 1941–1946 whereby Europeans better articulated an Atlantic

interest than did the U.S. policy makers themselves, and also had lately been manifest in

the roles of Walesa and Havel in the early 1990s in the articulation of the need for a

renewed commitment by the U.S. to Atlantic security in the midst of the end of the Cold

War.

In the post–September 11 environment, there was a renewed sense of the Special

Relationship that had been burdened in the experience of ex-Yugoslavia in the middle to

late 1990s elations between the United States and the United Kingdom evolved and

transitioned during this period. In the aftermath of the attacks on the United States, the

Blair government supported its principle ally and immediately mobilized its forces to

include the British Special Forces, the British Royal Navy, and over 1800 UK troops that

“led and coordinated the initial deployment of the International Security Assistance Force

(ISAF) in Afghanistan.”148 The support by the Blair government in defense matters was

not the only example of support to the Bush government.

Throughout the Blair-Bush relationship, this renewed sense of the Special

Relationship was also made evident by the policy statements of officials within each of

the governments. Rhetoric by the United States and the UK, namely the ability to convey

messages of cooperation and understanding, are at the very core of the Special

Relationship. One key example of is that of Nicholas Burns, at the time, the

undersecretary at the U.S. State Department for Europe, who regarded the “renewed

sense of purpose, compromise and unity in transatlantic relations” in a key speech at

146 Dumbrell, A Special Relationship, 155. 147 Wallace and Oliver, “A Bridge Too Far,” 170. 148 Ibid., 169.

46

Chatham House in London on 6 April 2005.149 This example especially from the U.S.

State Department within the cosmos of agencies of the U.S. government as a whole

illustrates how positive transatlantic relations were present in the rhetoric and dialogue

between the two nations even in the midst of war and the chorus of international criticism

that grew in the face of the especially the Iraqi campaign and its setbacks.

C. THE BROWN PREMIERSHIP: THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH BUSH AND OBAMA

Upon becoming Prime Minister in July 2007, the unlucky and less statesman like

Gordon Brown began distancing himself from the unpopular war in Iraq in the face of

domestic politics, but continued to support the war in Afghanistan. Brown’s approach

was regarded “both anti-Bush and pro-American,” but achieved neither one.150 Dunn

suggests this view of Brown in light of the “broader policy towards the United States” in

which the British government “found itself isolated between two poles.”151 That being

said, Brown’s support to the war effort in Afghanistan suffered no lapses. In fact, Brown

increased the number of troops in Afghanistan in support of the “‘good war.”152

In March 2009, Brown became the first European leader to meet with newly

elected President Barack Obama. During the visit, both Brown and Obama spoke of the

importance of the Special Relationship. Brown said he had come to “to renew our Special

Relationship for new times.”153 He continued by saying, “It is a partnership of purpose

born out of shared values. It is a partnership of purpose founded on determination to rise

to every challenge.”154 Obama agreed with Brown and said, “Great Britain is one of our

149 Dumbrell, The Special Relationship, 157. The speech referred to by Dumbrell was Nicholas Burns’

speech, “A Transatlantic Agenda for the Year Ahead,” given on 6 April 2005 at the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RUSI), Chatham House, London.

150 Dunn, “The Double Interregnum,” 1137. 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid., 1136. 153 “Obama hails special relationship,” BBC, 3 March 2009, accessed 2 September 2009,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7918345.stm. 154 Ibid.

47

closest and strongest allies and there is a link and bond that will not break.”155 He

followed by saying, “This notion that somehow there is any lessening of that Special

Relationship is misguided… The relationship is not only special and strong but will only

get stronger as time goes on.”156 Although the central topic of the meeting was the

economy, these statements by each of the leaders revealed the nature of the Special

Relationship regarding all aspects of the course of Brown and Obama’s terms as leaders

of the two countries.

D. THE CAMERON-OBAMA RELATIONSHIP

On 11 May 2010, President Obama telephoned newly elected Prime Minister

David Cameron, wherein the “two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the UK-U.S.

Special Relationship.”157 In an official statement released after the phone call, Obama

said, “the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom, and I

reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the Special Relationship between our two

countries–a bond that has endured for generations and across party lines, and that is

essential to the security and prosperity of our two countries, and the world.”158 He

concluded with, “I have no doubt that the ties between our two countries will continue to

thrive in the years to come.”159

On Cameron’s behalf, a Downing Street spokesman said that Cameron and

Obama discussed Afghanistan, among other things.160 This phone call set the stage for

the following year and a half at the leadership levels of Prime Minister/President for the

Special Relationship in which Afghanistan would be a priority for both leaders to address

at domestic and international levels.

155 “Obama hails special relationship,” BBC, 3 March 2009, accessed 2 September 2009,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7918345.stm. 156 Ibid. 157 “President Barack Obama calls David Cameron,” British Prime Minister’s Office, 11 May 2010,

accessed 2 September 2011, http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/president-barack-obama-calls-david-cameron/.

158 Ibid. 159 Ibid. 160 Ibid.

48

In June 2010, during Cameron and Obama’s first meeting at the G8 and G20

meetings in Canada, the two leaders agreed “the Afghanistan war must show progress in

a ‘critical stage’ this year.”161 Furthermore, the BBC reports stated that Obama

articulated “operations were entering a ‘critical’ period” while Cameron said, “Making

progress this year, putting everything we have into getting it right this year is vitally

important.”162 The continued commitment to the war in Afghanistan was evident during

this meeting as was the countries’ commitment to the Special Relationship. Obama went

on to add that the Special Relationship was “built on a rock solid foundation and would

only get stronger.”163

The relationship between Obama and Cameron is one highlighted by the

surge/withdrawal approach to the war in Afghanistan. The new approach as identified in

March 2009, was unveiled by Obama as a “new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to

combat an increasingly ‘perilous situation,’” wherein 4,000 U.S. personnel were sent in

to “train and bolster the Afghan army and police.”164 Additionally, “support for civilian

development” was also included in the new strategy.165 This new strategy was echoed by

the Cameron administration as well.

With the death of the chief enemy, Osama bin Laden, in May 2011 in Pakistan, a

certain feeling of accomplishment manifested within the Obama administration, and

furthermore, within the Special Relationship. Cameron’s speech on 5 May 2011

highlighted the close relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom

regarding the War on Terror and the war in Afghanistan.

The losses from both sides of the Atlantic in the September 11 attacks reveals yet

another example of all that is shared between the United States and the United Kingdom.

161 “Obama and Cameron want Afghanistan ‘progress’,” BBC, 26 June 2010, accessed 31 October

2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10423050. 162 “Obama and Cameron want Afghanistan ‘progress’,” BBC, 26 June 2010, accessed 31 October

2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10423050. 163 Ibid. 164 “Afghanistan Profile: A chronology of key events,” BBC, 4 October 2011, accessed 2 November

2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12024253. 165 Ibid.

49

Cameron’s speech makes it clear that the British have been standing side by side the

Americans in the fight and should be remembered thusly.166

We should remember today in particular the brave British servicemen and women who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism across the world. And we should pay tribute especially to those British forces who have played their part over the last decade in the hunt for bin Laden. He was the man who was responsible for 9/11–which was not only an horrific killing of Americans, but remains to this day, the largest loss of British life in any terrorist attack.167

In June 2011, The Telegraph reported Cameron’s intent to order more British

troops out of Afghanistan.168 The announcement followed Obama’s announcement for a

withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. The significant issue within this statement,

expressed in the first line of the article, was that Obama and Cameron were on the phone

coordinating the troop withdrawal prior to Obama’s announcement to the United

States.169 The coordination between the United States and the United Kingdom at its

highest levels is key and illustrates the closeness between the two countries and their

leaders in the war in Afghanistan.

E. THE ROLE OF THE PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS UK-U.S. RELATIONS INQUIRY

The UK-U.S. Inquiry conducted by Parliament, which officially began on 30 July

2009 revealed some of the major issues, from the British perspective, regarding U.S.-UK

involvement in Afghanistan. Overall, the inquiry spoke to military and defense

cooperation, a central tenet of the Special Relationship, and also took into account the

future of the UK’s involvement in U.S. led initiatives, specifically that of Afghanistan.

166 “Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism,” British Prime Minister’s

Office, 5 May 2011, accessed 6 November 2011, http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statement-on-the-death-of-usama-bin-laden-and-counter-terrorism/.

167 Ibid. 168 The Telegraph, London “Afghan troop withdrawal: David Cameron set to order more British

troops home” (accessed 31 October 2011) 22 June 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8592975/Afghan-troop-withdrawal-David-Cameron-set-to-order-more-British-troops-home.html

169 Ibid.

50

In 2010, the UK’s inquiry revealed various key points regarding the nature and

character of the war in Afghanistan from the British viewpoint. Despite criticism of how

intelligence was handled in the prelude to the Iraq campaign, as well as other issues of

alliance cohesion (i.e. Blair the poodle), the UK government inquiry placed a high value

on the role of UK-U.S. military and defense cooperation.170 Moreover, the manner in

which military and defense cooperation manifested itself in the conflict of Afghanistan is

of particular interest and reveals how the government of the United Kingdom envisions

the role of the UK-U.S. in the conflict.

With regard to UK-U.S. military and defense cooperation, the inquiry “Concluded

that stabilization in Afghanistan does require provision of security, good governance, and

a belief within the local population that international forces will outlast the

insurgents.”171 That being said,

There can be no question of the international community abandoning Afghanistan, and that the need for the international community to convey publicly that it intends to outlast the insurgency and remain in Afghanistan until the Afghan authorities are able to take control of their own security, must be a primary objective.172

The inquiry “concluded that in the short term, the United Kingdom should

continue to do all it can to assist the United States in the areas where it is also in the UK’s

security interests to do so, most notably in Afghanistan….”173 Furthermore, “In the

longer term, the Government’s foreign and security policy needs to be driven by the

UK’s national security obligations including those towards Britain’s Overseas Territories,

its NATO commitments and its security partnership with the United States”174

The inquiry addresses the importance of stability, security, and good governance,

which are all central to the ideals of the United States and the United Kingdom. The

inquiry’s assessment of the long-term goals of the UK’s foreign and security policy is of

170 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations, 23. 171 Ibid., 3. 172 Ibid. 173 Ibid., 4. 174 Great Britain, Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations, 4.

51

particular importance given its acknowledgment of the UK’s national security obligations

which include its security partnership with the United States Thus, the continued

coordination and cooperation of the United Kingdom and the United States will continue

well into the future, attesting to the centrality of the Special Relationship in the foreign

and security policies of the United Kingdom.

F. THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS

The integration of United Nations (UN) authority and decision making into the

war in Afghanistan was unlike the case of Iraq in 2002–2003 with the motto of the

“mission defines the coalition.” Different from the war in Iraq in its opening phases, the

role of the United Nations has loomed large in the war in Afghanistan, given the U.S. and

UK’s initiatives to involve the organization, which is the bedrock of international

organizations and collective security as well as collective defense. With the release of UN

Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1386 on 20 December 2001, the establishment of

an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was an immediate action that has

resulted in a multilateral effort, authorizing the deployment for six months of an ISAF

which in its first phase was limited to the security of Kabul and then took on additional

roles and missions.175 Follow-on resolutions have continued to provide guidance and

authorization to the western and allied campaign in Afghanistan.

Even with the multilateral effort that as of 2006 assumed a more pronounced

NATO character and operational dimension, the United States and the United Kingdom

remain the largest contributors of troops to Afghanistan.176 The multilateral context of

the war in Afghanistan, compounded by the cause of the war, has created a perception

different from that of the Iraq war in the minds of British and American citizens alike.

While the unpopular war in Iraq comes to a close, the war in Afghanistan continues and

175 “Security Council authorizes International Security Force for Afghanistan, Welcomes United

Kingdom’s Offer To Be Initial Lead Nation,” United Nations, 12 December 2011, accessed 7 November 2011, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7248.doc.htm.

176 Dunn, “The Double Interregnum,” 1136.

52

is becoming increasingly unpopular, however for different reasons in the United

Kingdom, there mostly related to defense budget cuts, the economy, and the status of the

forces.

Overall, the Special Relationship continues to be a powerful force within the

United Nations and by extension, NATO. Conversely, the United Nations and NATO

have played an important role in the Special Relationship by assisting in the

legitimization of the war in Afghanistan and by bringing a multilateral approach to the

role of intervention in Afghanistan.

G. CONCLUSION

The war in Afghanistan has proved to be an example of the Special Relationship

leading the world towards greater democracy, rule of law, human rights, and fighting in a

multilateral context. Perceptions of the United Kingdom and the United States have

shifted from perceptions of unilateralism and “going at it alone” to a new approach

embracing multilateral policies in the fight against terror. In the war in Afghanistan,

especially, a sense of cooperation and coordination between the two partners has

characterized the Special Relationship.

In the war in Afghanistan, the Special Relationship has gone through changes that

are important to the role of the Special Relationship in the twenty-first century. Although

the Special Relationship has been close at the personal level since the Bush–Blair

administration, and has remained close at some points albeit to a perceived lesser degree,

the role of military action by coalitions at the international level and within the construct

of the United Nations has made the Special Relationship a popular institution and force

within the international system of states.

The United Nations has played a role in Afghanistan that is poignantly different

from the role the United Nations played in the war Iraq. It is clear the UN resolutions and

the creation of the ISAF in Afghanistan have proven to be the vehicle through which the

war has been fought and continues to be fought in late 2011. However, with the

impending withdrawal of U.S. and UK forces as portrayed by Prime Minister Cameron

53

and President Obama in 2011, only time will tell the true benefit provided by the military,

diplomatic, and political dimensions of the Special Relationship in the future of the

country of Afghanistan.

54


55

VI. LIBYA

A. INTRODUCTION

In February 2011, the Special Relationship again confronted conflict of an

unexpected kind in a new phase of a new century that had seen a major political upheaval

in the Arab world that overturned the ruling order of more than half a century. In the

North African country of Libya, an uprising against Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, a

figure who had been a thorn in the side of the United States and United Kingdom for

decades, beginning in the city of Benghazi led to an attack against protesters by Libyan

forces. While numerous Libyan diplomats resigned from their positions in protest to the

attack, Qaddafi insisted, “that he would not quit.”177 In March 2011, the UN Security

Council released United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973, which

authorized a no-fly zone over Libya, as well as air strikes, to be conducted by the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in order to protect civilians.178,179 On 20 October

2011, Qaddafi was killed and the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) officially

declared Libya as liberated on 23 October 2011.180

Under NATO, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other allies

and partners conducted military operations in Libya in support of UNSCR 1973. While

the United States and the United Kingdom were involved in the entire process, President

Obama’s approach to supporting the war in Libya was constructed in a multilateral

context from the very beginning and conceived in plain contrast to the mission defines

the coalition approach of the era 2001 and 2002 in preparation for the Iraqi campaign of

177 “Libya Profile: A Chronology of Key Events,” BBC, 23 October 2011, accessed 31 October 2011,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445. 178 “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973,” United Nations Security Council. 17 March

2011, accessed 31 October 2011, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement.

179 More information on the follow-on UNSCRs in 2011 related to the Libyan Civil War can be found at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions11.htm.

180 “Libya Profile: A Chronology of Key Events,” BBC, 23 October 2011, accessed 31 October 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445.

56

the following year. Obama’s expression of a need for a multilateral approach to the action

in Libya was undertaken and NATO acted as a kind of alibi of a nation for the U.S. desire

to avoid what seemed to many makers of policy as the errors of alliance cohesion in the

years 2003 and following. Unlike the case of Iraq, the Libyan case demonstrated the

United States and the United Kingdom’s willingness and belief in the necessity to act in a

multilateral manner under the United Nations and within the construct of NATO. This

policy also included a major role for the French, whose reintegration into the NATO

military command organization had unfolded months before.

In this chapter, the Special Relationship will be revealed from the viewpoint of

the Cameron-Obama bilateral relationship. Obama’s approach in dealing with Libya is of

particular interest to identifying the nature and character of the Special Relationship

during 2011, that is, as war in Iraq has been more or less ending and the winding down

phase of operations in Afghanistan. Also addressed in this chapter is the role of NATO as

the organization leading the military effort in Libya.

B. THE CAMERON-OBAMA RELATIONSHIP

The multilateral approach by President Barack Obama, as opposed to the

unilateral policies of the Bush administration, has been important to the strategic debate

of the Libyan conflict and the role for intervention in North Africa. From the very

beginning, it seemed as if the Obama administration was not willing to proceed in Libya

only with a U.S. coalition of the willing, per se, but instead within the auspices of a UN-

NATO multilateral operation as has been more or less the custom of U.S. statecraft for

more than a century and was dumped with great sound by the Bush administration after

September 2001.

The role of international institutions in the conflict in Libya, a vital element

within the Special Relationship, was as important in Libya as it was throughout the Iraq

and Afghanistan wars. Most notably, that of the United Nations and NATO—working

through institutions that were originally founded by the partners of the Special

Relationship—to deal with the issues of the world in a multilateral fashion is well worth

analysis as concerns the values that are at the core of the Special Relationship, as well as

57

the shared interests. The ability of the Special Relationship to employ these international

institutions in the case of Libya, was first demonstrated by the administrations of

Cameron and then Obama working through the UN to seek a Resolution for the conflict

in Libya. Also, the ability of the United Stattes and the United Kingdom to seek out

diplomatic, economic, and political options, versus solely the use of combat as a

substitute for policy, was highlighted throughout the discussions between Obama and

Cameron prior to the approval of UNSCR 1973.

On 8 March 2011, The Telegraph reported Obama and Cameron’s “full spectrum

plan of action on Libya.”181 Within the ideas being discussed for a plan, there was a

request by the Libyan rebels for a no-fly zone.182 Surveillance and enforcement of the

arms embargo against Libya were also considerations within the plan.183 These features

of policy recalled the Balkans in the 1990s, whose errors of policy loomed large in the

need to act at the moment in 2011. An important aspect of the plan in relation to the no-

fly zone was Obama’s reluctance, more so than that of Cameron and President Nicolas

Sarkozy of France, in supporting the no-fly zone.184 Obama’s reluctance would also be

visible in later negotiations of the path to take in actions in Libya.

On 21 April 2011, The Telegraph reported Cameron and Obama “agreed that UN

Security Council resolutions demanding that the Libyan government cease violence

against civilians must be fully implemented.”185 Furthermore, according to a White

House statement, “In addition to increasing military pressure and protecting civilians

through the coalition operation that NATO is leading, the leaders discussed the

181 Richard Spencer, Adrian Blomfield and James Kirkup, “Libya: David Cameron and Barack Obama

plan ‘full spectrum’ of action on Libya” The Telegraph, 8 March 2011, accessed 4 November 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8369700/Libya-David-Cameron-and-Barack-Obama-plan-full-spectrum-of-action-on-Libya.html.

182 Ibid. 183 Ibid. 184 Ibid. 185 “Libya: David Cameron and Barack Obama discuss need to increase military pressure,” The

Telegraph, 21 April 2011, accessed 4 November 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8465174/Libya-David-Cameron-and-Barack-Obama-discuss-need-to-increase-military-pressure.html.

58

importance of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure on the Gaddafi regime to

cease attacks on civilians and comply with UN Security Council resolutions.”186

Obama was reported by The Telegraph as supporting “A French and British move

to dispatch military advisers to help rebels fighting Gaddafi,” although he “still opposes

sending U.S. ground troops to Libya.”187 Although Cameron and Obama agreed on the

use of military pressure in Libya, the way in which each President chose to deal with the

issue militarily was slightly different. In the same White House comments given by

White House Spokesman, Jay Carney, and reported in The Telegraph, “The president

obviously is aware of this decision and supports it, and hopes and believes it will help the

opposition,” “But it does not at all change the president’s policy on no ‘boots on the

ground’ for American troops.”188

In May 2011, just before Obama’s state visit to the UK, tensions were reportedly

rising between the U.S. and UK regarding each other’s involvement in Libya.189 On the

one hand, “Britain wants the U.S. to take more of a defined role in the campaign, with

UK military chiefs protesting that the effectiveness of bombing raids is being lessened by

the absence of American leadership.”190 While on the other hand, “U.S. diplomatic

sources, meanwhile, have criticized Britain as a ‘skittish’ and unpredictable ally which

frequently issues a ‘red card’ -- effectively vetoing a target, causing confusion and greatly

hampering proper planning.”191 This kind of exchange also recalled the burden sharing

back-biting of the Cold War and particularly the issue of policy and strategy in south

eastern Europe in the middle and late 1990s. Sensing the differences between the two

186 “Libya: David Cameron and Barack Obama discuss need to increase military pressure,” The

Telegraph, 21 April 2011, accessed 4 November 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8465174/Libya-David-Cameron-and-Barack-Obama-discuss-need-to-increase-military-pressure.html.

187 Ibid. 188 Ibid. 189 Patrick Hennessy, Philip Sherwell and Andrew Gilligan, “Barack Obama's state visit to Britain hit

by splits over Libya,” The Telegraph, 21 May 2011, accessed 4 November 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8528195/Barack-Obamas-state-visit-to-Britain-hit-by-splits-over-Libya.html.

190 Ibid. 191 Ibid.

59

allies, Obama issued a letter to Congress in which he addressed the lack of leadership and

pointed to the limited nature of the campaign in Libya.192 Furthermore, in addressing

Congress with the letter, Obama who is “facing rising political clamor in the U.S. against

the Libyan campaign,” stated “It has always been my view that it is better to take military

action, even in limited actions such as this, with Congressional engagement, consultation,

and support.”193 This statement, of course, signaled the importance of Congressional

support, which similar to the role of Parliament to the Prime Minister, is necessary to the

U.S. Presidency. However, in the case of the U.S. president, the anti-European and anti-

NATO rhetoric of a particular party operated in this case, as well as the heirs of Robert

Taft in the great debate to limit presidential power in national security affairs.

In light of these differences, Obama and Cameron were going to address the issue

during the state visit, among a host of other issues at hand. During the visit, both leaders

came together on the subject of Libya on a number of points. Cameron started the

dialogue by stating, that “in their (Cameron and Obama’s) approach to North Africa they

had ‘ruled out occupying forces and invading armies,’” thus differentiating the Obama–

Cameron approach in Libya to that of the Bush–Blair approach to Iraq.194 Obama

followed by stating, “they were using military power ‘in a strategically careful way.’”195

The two leaders continued exhibiting this sense of cooperation, coordination, and

commitment to the Special Relationship and to the charge at hand, the events in Libya,

throughout Obama’s state visit. The Special Relationship “was not just ‘special,’ but

‘essential’ too” and it was not only between these two particular leaders, but with every

192 Patrick Hennessy, Philip Sherwell and Andrew Gilligan, “Barack Obama's state visit to Britain hit

by splits over Libya,” The Telegraph, 21 May 2011, accessed 4 November 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8528195/Barack-Obamas-state-visit-to-Britain-hit-by-splits-over-Libya.html.

193 Ibid. 194 Andrew Sparrow, “David Cameron and Barack Obama's press conference: The Main Points,” The

Guardian, 25 May 2011, accessed 18 July 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/may/25/obama-cameron-press-conference-main-points.

195 Ibid.

60

leader of the UK and U.S.196 In his own words, Obama “insisted that the relationship

between the two countries didn’t just depend on the relationship between the two leaders.

The alliance would be consistent ‘regardless of who the president or the prime minister is

and it’s going to be consistent regardless of what parties we come from.”197 Obama

continued by saying, “I believe it (the Special Relationship) is stronger than it’s ever

been…and I’m committed to making sure it stays that way.”198

Turning back to the issue of Libya, Obama stated that both he and Cameron

agreed that they could not deploy ground troops to Libya and the “Libyan opposition

needed to play the role on the ground.”199 Instead, as Cameron said, “patience and

persistence was needed from the alliance” as the “Libyan opposition was being built

up.”200 Both leaders agreed that there would be “no let up” and Qaddafi needed to go.201

The National Transitional Council (NTC) officially declared Libya to have been

liberated on 23 October 2011, just three days after the death of Qaddafi on 20 October

2011.202 On 31 October 2011, NATO forces concluded the last mission of Operation

Unified Protector in Libya.203

196 Andrew Sparrow, “David Cameron and Barack Obama's press conference: The Main Points,” The


197 Ibid. 198 Andrew Porter, “Barack Obama visit: Special Relationship between Britain and U.S. now essential

and stronger than ever,” The Telegraph, 25 May 2011, accessed 2 September 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8535774/Barack-Obama-visit-special-relationship-between-Britain-and-US-now-essential-and-stronger-than-ever.html.

199 Ibid. 200 Ibid. 201 Matt Falloon and Joseph Logan, “Obama warns Gaddafi of ‘no let up’,” Reuters, 25 May 2011,

accessed 2 September 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110525.

202 “Libya Profile: A Chronology of Key Events,” BBC, 23 October 2011, accessed 31 October 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445.

203 “NATO and Libya,” NATO, 31 October 2011, accessed 8 November 2011, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/71679.htm.

61

C. THE ROLE OF NATO

While the war in Afghanistan became the most difficult out-of-area deployment

for NATO forces, the campaign in Libya would prove to be a new chapter of a different

kind that recalled the early phase of the Afghan campaign, as well as other episodes in

the history of the alliance. The NATO role in taking over control for military operations

under UNSCR 1973, marked the second time NATO forces have agreed to fight an out-

of-area conflict. Yugoslavia was the first real out of area conflict, even if it was in

Europe, it was not technically in the NATO area. Under the name, Operation Unified

Protector (OUP), NATO’s mission is “to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas

under threat of attack.”204 Also, NATO forces would be involved in “enforcing an arms

embargo and maintaining a no-fly zone.”205

During the operation, no NATO ground troops were involved.206 According to

NATO, “NATO’s success to date has been achieved solely with air and sea forces.”207

In April 2011, NATO allies and non-NATO allies agreed to be

Committed to using all necessary resources and maximum operational flexibility to meet the UN mandate until such time that: all attacks on civilians and civilian-populated areas have ended, the Qaddafi regime withdraws all military and paramilitary forces to bases, and the Qaddafi regime permits immediate, full, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian aid for the Libyan people.208

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO Secretary General, during a visit to the

United States on 10 May 2011, attested to NATO’s “acting under the authority of an

historic UN Security Council Resolution.”209 He stated, “Just like Afghanistan, Libya is

204 “NATO and Libya – Operation Unified Protector,” NATO, 25 October 2011, accessed 8

November 2011, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_71652.htm. 205 Ibid. 206 Ibid. 207 Ibid. 208 Ibid. 209 “Defending Freedom and Common Values in the 21st Century,” NATO, 10 May 2011, accessed

20 July 2011, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_73685.htm?selectedLocale=en.

62

a strong demonstration of NATO’s resolve.”210 Through shared values and freedoms, the

NATO allies together can counter those who threaten the alliance.

Interestingly enough, Rasmussen’s comments contain the tenets of the Special

Relationship as same are evident in the institution of NATO. The organization, founded

over sixty years ago, still shares the same “values of freedom, democracy, and

humanity,” remains true to the founders’ intent and vision for a safer Euro-Atlantic

region as enshrined in the articles of the Washington Treaty and as these have evolved

since 1949 in a series of crises. Even though the campaign in Libya was fought in a

multilateral fashion through the institution of NATO, the United States and the United

Kingdom remained central to the formation of policy and its realization in combat. The

forces of the Special Relationship were not only evident in NATO at its beginning after

the Second World War, but still continue as a formidable power in the twenty-first

century.

D. CONCLUSION

The conflict in Libya demonstrated the continued cooperation and coordination

between the United States and the United Kingdom at various levels within the Special

Relationship. The search for diplomatic, economic, and political options, as well as

military ones, tor solve the conflict in Libya highlights the role of the leadership within

the Special Relationship, and its continued focus on dealing with challenges in an ever-

changing world.

The ability of the United States and the United Kingdom to seek a multilateral

approach from the inception of the Libyan crisis is completely different from that of Iraq

and Afghanistan. Obama’s unwillingness to go it alone versus that of Bush’s unilateralist

push into war in Iraq was a change in U.S. statecraft that resonated within the Cameron

government. Involvement by the United Nations and furthermore by NATO as the

210“Defending Freedom and Common Values in the 21st Century,” NATO, 10 May 2011, accessed 20

July 2011, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_73685.htm?selectedLocale=en.

63

organization leading the military effort was not only key in the Libyan crisis, but

indicative of a changing pattern in how the leaders of the Special Relationship were going

to conduct military operations in the new decade.

The campaign in Libya reflects how the policy and strategy of the United States

and the United Kingdom has changed under the administrations of Obama and Cameron

in coordinating and cooperating to achieve a multilateral approach, but the campaign also

demonstrates the staying power of institutions within democracies such as evidenced by

the U.S. Congress and the UK military, who remain focused on their priorities to achieve

the mission.

In conclusion, the campaign in Libya serves as a springboard for new multilateral

operations based on the institutions, values, and precepts of the Special Relationship,

where the issue of burden-sharing and alliance cohesion may be less of an issue than in

the recent campaigns of Iraq and Afghanistan.

64


65

VII. CONCLUSION

A. HISTORY OF SHARED INTERESTS, COOPERATION, AND UNDERSTANDING

Critics on both sides of the Atlantic have reflected upon and criticized the policy

and strategy of the United States and the United Kingdom in the campaigns in Iraq,

Afghanistan, and Libya. The question that requires attention, however, is the Special

Relationship and its durability, purpose, relevance and significance in the twenty-first

century. With this question in mind, the Special Relationship continues to be a force

within the European system of states and the international system of states as a whole.

The Special Relationship is a distinctive partnership built upon a history of shared

values, interests, culture, and cooperation in peace and war. From the diplomatic,

political, and economic ties to its connections in the realm of military, security, nuclear,

and defense affairs, the Special Relationship’s uniqueness and deep ties prove its

durability and its ability to change and continue as a force for democratic values, human

rights, and rule of law in the world. This pact has been especially subject to stress in the

last ten years since 11 September, but shows more durability than say, the United States

and German relationship, which had been formerly a close one and has become

problematic since the Schroeder chancellorship and the advent of a German policy of

equidistance with its allies and others.

The three case studies demonstrate the evolution of the Special Relationship,

beginning with the Bush-Blair connection to the Brown premiership during the Bush and

Obama presidencies to the Cameron-Obama relationship. From a policy point of mission

defines the coalition to fighting in a multilateral context within the institutions of NATO

and the UN, the Special Relationship has endured not only policy changes and strategic

reassessments, but has faced these crisis together.

The case studies further reveal the strength and enduring qualities of the Special

Relationship in values, interests, as well as personalities and the institutions within the

bilateral relationship. While the personalities at the highest levels of the U.S. and UK

66

governments provide the strategy and policy context of this relationship, the other aspects

of the relationship, for example, the military, defense, and security cooperation and

coordination that exists within the Special Relationship continues to thrive at the

operational and tactical levels ultimately providing the momentum and drive to move

together into the next decade. The closeness of military affairs in the wake of the last

decade is noteworthy and reflects a degree of integration and cooperation on an

unprecedented scale.

B. THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP IN 2011: THE WAY AHEAD?

The Special Relationship continues with a renewed focus based on the shared

values, traditions, and institutions that have sustained this bilateral feature of the

international system through crisis and calm. The most recent example of U.S.-UK

cooperation has been President Obama’s visit to the United Kingdom in May 2011. The

three-day state visit to the United Kingdom marked the first visit by a U.S. President

since the year 2003 and the first time a U.S. President has addressed members of the

House of Commons and peers in Westminster Hall.

The speeches and statements made by President Obama and Prime Minister

Cameron are indicative of the direction in which the Special Relationship appears to be

headed in the remaining years of the decade. Obama and Cameron began the state visit by

agreeing that the bilateral relationship between the two countries “is an essential one.”211

This particular point was highlighted by other media outlets such as the BBC with its

joint article in the Times reporting,

Mr. Obama and Mr. Cameron have described the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States as essential. Ours is not just a special relationship, it is an essential relationship - for us and for the

211 Andrew Porter, “Barack Obama visit: Special Relationship between Britain and U.S. now essential

and stronger than ever,” The Telegraph, 25 May 2011, accessed 25 May 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8535774/Barack-Obama-visit-special-relationship-between-Britain-and-US-now-essential-and-stronger-than-ever.html.

67

world. When the United States and Britain stand together, our people and people around the world can become more secure and more prosperous.212

During the visit, President Obama remarked that the Special Relationship would

continue “regardless of who the president or the prime minister is and it’s going to be

consistent regardless of what parties we come from.”213 This statement is an ambitious

one that makes a process seem to be easy that actually has been far from it especially in

the legacy of a decade of conflict as well as the world financial crisis which has

particularly harmed London and Washington. Obama continued by stating, “there are few

nations that stand firmer, speak louder and fight harder to defend democratic values

around the world than the United States and the United Kingdom.”214 The United States

and the United Kingdom would be entering a “new chapter in our shared history with

new challenges” and the time had come for the United States and its European allies, the

West, to lead.215

The state visit was one filled with purpose and vision for the future collaboration

between the two countries. This hope was demonstrated by Obama and Cameron’s press

conference whereby they defined “six specific areas where the United Kingdom and the

United States will strengthen their co-operation in the coming months.”216 These six

areas are primarily focused on the following areas, as detailed by the UK’s Foreign and

Commonwealth Office: security and support to Armed Forces personnel; commitments to

collaboration in science, higher education, volunteerism, and international development;

and the development of cyberspace.217 Within the area of security, a U.S.-UK Joint

212 Michael Hirst, et al., “Barack Obama's visit to the UK,” BBC, 25 May 2011, accessed 11

September 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13518279. 213 Andrew Sparrow, “David Cameron and Barack Obama's press conference: the main points,” The


214 “President Obama: Now is time for US and West to lead,” BBC, 25 May 2011, 2 September 2011, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13533306.

215 Ibid. 216 “Prime Minister and U.S. President strengthen collaboration,” UK Foreign & Commonwealth

Office (FCO), 25 May 2011, accessed 2 September 2011, http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/news/2011/may/pm-obama-deliverables250511, 1.

217 FCO, 1.

68

Strategy Board will be formed to “develop a coordinated approach to long term

challenges in the global economic and security environment.”218 This serves as yet

another example of the Special Relationship’s shared tradition of institution building

which forms an especially vital aspect of this force in the international system. Overall,

these six areas signify the diversity of the special relationship in its ability to address

challenges and collaborate within a number of areas within society.

In 2008, Dunn articulated the following,

For the UK to maintain good relations with Washington requires more than the continuation of its long-established military, economic, financial and intelligence links. It also demands that its leaders maintain good personal relations with the incumbent of the White House as a matter of necessity, whoever that incumbent might be. The atmospherics of diplomacy, style, good presentation, supportive rhetoric and the avoidance of public criticism are all necessary for continued harmony in relations on the more fundamental issues.219

In 2011, the meetings between Obama and Cameron exemplify this very suggestion for

the affairs of the Special Relationship.

Given the context of the last ten years throughout the episodes of Iraq,

Afghanistan, and Libya, the Special Relationship has remained a powerful force-player in

the international system of states. With its renewed focus and commitment, as exhibited

by President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron in 2011, there is no doubt that the

Special Relationship will continue well onto the future.

C. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Special Relationship has persevered and survived through some

of the most difficult crises of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Born in crisis at the

darkest moments of the Second World War, the special relationship endured in the crises

of the cold war and has further evolved in the challenges of the present. These include the

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya campaigns to the issues of the International economic crisis,

218 FCO, 1. 219 Dunn, “The Double Interregnum,” 1143.

69

the British and U.S. National debt and defense budget cut issues, the Special Relationship

continues. This complicated relationship between the two English-speaking countries

endures in spite of the negative attitudes of Anti-Americanism. Built upon the values and

traditions of the United States and United Kingdom and supported by the commitment of

its leadership and institutions, the Special Relationship will continue as the principal

bilateral relationship in the world for the next one hundred years.

Furthermore, the significance of the Special Relationship lies in the shared values,

traditions, and institutions of the United States and the United Kingdom. As evidenced

throughout the thesis, the personalities, institutions, strategies, and policies shared

between the two countries garner a sense of cooperation and understanding unlike any

other bilateral relationship in the world. Ultimately, the importance of the Special

Relationship lies in the fact that the Special Relationship is neither fiction nor myth. The

Special Relationship is a real partnership that has endured crises of all sorts and continues

to flourish and prosper even after ten years of hardship and war. The Special Relationship

has once again passed the test and it is here to stay.

70


71

LIST OF REFERENCES

Baylis, John. Anglo-American Defense Relations 1939–1984. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984.

BBC. “Afghanistan Profile: A chronology of key events.” 4 October 2011. Accessed 2 November 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12024253.

———. “Iraq inquiry hears defiant Blair say: I’d do it again.” 29 January 2010. Accessed 14 September 2011 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8485694.stm.

———. “Libya Profile: A Chronology of Key Events.” 23 October 2011. Accessed 31 October 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445.

———. “Obama and Cameron want Afghanistan ‘progress,’” 26 June 2010. Accessed 31 October 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10423050.

———. “Obama hails special relationship.” 3 March 2009. Accessed 2 September 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7918345.stm.

———. “President Obama: Now is time for U.S. and West to lead.” 25 May 2011. Accessed 2 September 2011. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13533306.

Boothroyd, David. Politico’s Guide to the History of British Political Parties. London: Politico’s Publishing, 2001.

British Prime Minister’s Office. “President Barack Obama calls David Cameron.” 11 May 2010, Accessed 2 September 2011. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/president-barack-obama-calls-david-cameron/.

———. “Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism.” 5 May 2011. Accessed 6 November 2011. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statement-on-the-death-of-usama-bin-laden-and-counter-terrorism/.

Burk, Kathleen. “Old World, New World: Great Britain and America from the beginning.” In America’s ‘Special Relationships’: Foreign and Domestic Aspects of the Politics of Alliance, edited by John Dumbrell and Axel R. Schafer, 24–44. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.

Churchill, Winston S., “The Sinews of Peace Address,” NATO, 5 March 1946, accessed 17 September 2011, http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1946/s460305a_e.htm.

Conservative Party. “The Conservative Manifesto 2010: Invitation to Join the Government of Britain.” 13 April 2010. Accessed 31 October 2011. http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Manifesto.aspx.

72

Conservative Party. “History of the Conservatives.” Accessed 31 October 2011, http://www.conservatives.com/People/The_History_of_the_Conservatives/Origins.aspx.

Dobson, Alan P. Anglo-American Relations in the Twentieth Century: of Friendship, Conflict and the Rise and Decline of Superpowers. Oxon: Routledge, 1995.

Dumbrell, John. “Hating Bush, supporting Washington: George W. Bush, anti-Americanism and the U.S.-UK special relationship.” In America’s ‘Special Relationships’: Foreign and Domestic Aspects of the Politics of Alliance, edited by John Dumbrell and Axel R. Schafer, 45–59. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.

———. A Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.

———. “Working with Allies: The United States, the United Kingdom, and the War on Terror.” Politics & Policy 34, no. 2 (2006): 452–472.

Dunn, David Hastings. “The Double Interregnum: UK-U.S. relations beyond Blair and Bush.” International Affairs 84, no. 6 (2008): 1131–1143.

———. “UK-U.S. Relations After the Three Bs–Blair, Brown and Bush.” Defense & Security Analysis 27, no. 1 (2011): 5–18.

Falloon, Matt and Joseph Logan. “Obama warns Gaddafi of ‘no let up.’” Reuters. 25 May 2011. Accessed 2 September 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110525.

Fox, Liam. “Security and Defense: Making Sense of the Special Relationship.” Heritage Lectures 939 (2006): 1–7.

Freedman, Lawrence D. “The Special Relationship, Then and Now.” Foreign Affairs 85, no. 3 (2006): 61–73.

Gallagher, Michael Michael Laver, and Peter Mair. Representative Government in Modern Europe: Institutions, Parties, and Governments. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.

Great Britain. Global Security: UK-U.S. Relations: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2009–10: Third Special Report of Session 2009–10. London: Stationery Office, 2010.

Hague, William. The Future of British Foreign Policy with a Conservative Government. Speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 21 July 2009.

———. The Foreign Policy Framework of a New Conservative Government. Speech at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), London, 10 March 2010.

73

———. Thinking Ahead: The Foreign Policy of The Next Conservative Government. Speech at Chatham House, London, 31 January 2007.

Harper, John Lamberton. American Visions of Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Hendrickson, Ryan C. Diplomacy and War at NATO: The Secretary General and Military Action after the Cold War. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2006.

Hennessy, Patrick, Philip Sherwell and Andrew Gilligan. “Barack Obama’s state visit to Britain hit by splits over Libya.” The Telegraph. 21 May 2011. Accessed 4 November 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8528195/Barack-Obamas-state-visit-to-Britain-hit-by-splits-over-Libya.html.

Hirst, Michael. et al., “Barack Obama’s visit to the UK.” BBC. 25 May 2011. Accessed 11 September 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13518279.

The Iraq Inquiry. Accessed 10 September 2011, www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/about.aspx.

———. “Terms of Reference.” Accessed 10 September 2011. www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/about.aspx.

Labour Party. “History of the Labour Party.” Accessed 31 October 2011, http://www.labour.org.uk/history_of_the_labour_party.

———. “The Labour Election Manifesto 2010: A Future Fair for All.” 12 April 2010. Accessed 24 October 2011. http://www.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf.

Liberal Democrats. “The Coalition: Our Programme for Government.” Crown Copyright. May 2010. Accessed 15 August 2011. http://www.libdems.org.uk/coalition_agreement.aspx.

Liberal Democrat Party. “Liberal Democrat Election Manifesto 2010: Change that works for you. Building a Fairer Britain.” 14 April 2010. Accessed 31 October 2011. http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf.

Louis, William Louis and Hedley Bull, edited, The “Special Relationship”: Anglo-American Relations Since 1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.

NATO. “Defending Freedom and Common Values in the 21st Century.” 10 May 2011. Accessed 20 July 2011. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_73685.htm?selectedLocale=en.

74

———. “NATO and Libya.” 31 October 2011. Accessed 8 November 2011. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/71679.htm.

———. “NATO and Libya–Operation Unified Protector.” 25 October 2011. Accessed 8 November 2011. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_71652.htm.

Porter, Andrew. “Barack Obama visit: Special Relationship between Britain and U.S. now essential and stronger than ever.” The Telegraph. 25 May 2011. Accessed 2 September 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8535774/Barack-Obama-visit-special-relationship-between-Britain-and-U.S.-now-essential-and-stronger-than-ever.html.

Reynolds, David. “1940: Fulcrum of the Twentieth Century?” International Affairs, 66, no. 2 (1990): 325–350.

———. “Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Wartime Anglo-American. Alliance, 1939–1945: Towards a New Synthesis.” In The ‘Special Relationship’: Anglo-American Relations since 1945, edited by William Roger Louis and Hedley Bull, 17–41. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RUSI) Chatham House. Rethinking the UK’s International Ambitions and Choices: UK Foreign Policy: Statements by the Three Main Political Parties. London: Chatham House, 2010.

Sharp, Jane M.O. Tony Blair, Iraq, and the Special Relationship: Poodle or Partner? International Journal, 59, no. 1 (2003/2004): 59–86.

Shipman, Tim. “History of Britain’s special relationship with America,” The Telegraph, 1 March 2009. Accessed 2 September 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4885895/History-of-Britains-special-relationship-with-America.html.

Sparrow, Andrew. “David Cameron and Barack Obama’s press conference: The Main Points.” The Guardian. 25 May 2011. Accessed 18 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/may/25/obama-cameron-press-conference-main-points.

Spencer, Richard, Adrian Blomfield and James Kirkup. “Libya: David Cameron and Barack Obama plan ‘full spectrum’ of action on Libya.” The Telegraph. 8 March 2011. Accessed 4 November 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8369700/Libya-David-Cameron-and-Barack-Obama-plan-full-spectrum-of-action-on-Libya.html.

Stoler, Mark A. Allies and Adversaries: The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Grand Alliance, and U.S. Strategy in World War II. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2000.

75

The Telegraph. “Afghan troop withdrawal: David Cameron set to order more British troops home.” 22 June 2011. Accessed 31 October 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8592975/Afghan-troop-withdrawal-David-Cameron-set-to-order-more-British-troops-home.html

———. “Libya: David Cameron and Barack Obama discuss need to increase military pressure.” 21 April 2011. Accessed 4 November 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8465174/Libya-David-Cameron-and-Barack-Obama-discuss-need-to-increase-military-pressure.html.

Thomas, Ian Q.R. The Promise of Alliance: NATO and the Political Imagination. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.

Thies, Wallace J. Friendly Rivals: Bargaining and Burden-Shifting in NATO. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2003.

UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO). “Prime Minister and U.S. President strengthen collaboration.” 25 May 2011. Accessed 2 September 2011. http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/news/2011/may/pm-obama-deliverables250511, 1–2.

United Nations. “Security Council authorizes International Security Force for Afghanistan, Welcomes United Kingdom’s Offer To Be Initial Lead Nation.” 12 December 2011. Accessed 7 November 2011. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7248.doc.htm.

United Nations Security Council. “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.” 17 March 2011. Accessed 31 October 2011. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement.

Wallace, William and Tim Oliver, “A Bridge Too Far: The United Kingdom and the Transatlantic Relationship.” In The Atlantic Alliance Under Stress: U.S.-European Relations after Iraq, edited by David M. Andrews, 152–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Watt, D. Cameron. Succeeding John Bull: America in Britain’s Place, 1900–1975: a Study of the Anglo-American Relationship and World Politics in the Context of British and American Foreign-Policy-Making in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

76


77

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

1. Defense Technical Information Center Ft. Belvoir, Virginia

2. Dudley Knox Library Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL · B.B.A., Mercer University, 2000 B.A, Mercer University, 2000 Submitted...

Documents